Gerald J. Noonan (Archives)

CRIMINAL COMPLAINT AGAINST CERTIFIED NURSING ASSISTANT AND IMMIGRANT FROM HAITI FOR OPERATING A MOTOR VEHICLE WITHOUT A LICENSE IS DISMISSED AT CLERK’S HEARING

Client is a 23 year-old woman who emigrated from Haiti. She attended Massasoit Community College and later became a Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) and she is currently employed as a CNA for a nursing home. She obtained a Learner’s Permit to operate a motor vehicle, but she had failed her driving test. She did not have a valid driver’s license when she was pulled over by police for a motor vehicle infraction and she was charged with Operating a Motor Vehicle without a License (G.L. c. 90, §10). She did not have any criminal record.

Result: At the Clerk-Magistrate Hearing, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan was able to get the criminal complaint dismissed. Usually, the client would have her aunt drive her to and from work. On this occasion, the client made a poor mistake in judgment and drove without a license.

DEFENDANT WAS CHARGED WITH FELONY 4^TH OFFENSE DRUNK DRIVING BUT ATTORNEY GERALD J. NOONAN GETS THE CHARGE REDUCED TO A MISDEMEANOR 2^ND OFFENSE, SAVING THE CLIENT FROM A MANDATORY JAIL SENTENCE OF 2 YEARS.

Defendant was charged with Operating under the Influence of Alcohol (G.L. c. 90, §24M) and Negligent Operation. This was his 4^th offense for drunk driving carrying a minimum mandatory jail sentence of 2 years in the house of correction. Stoughton Police observed the Defendant’s vehicle almost strike a telephone pole and nearly struck trash barrels. Police observed the vehicle swerving all over the road. The vehicle was driving in the opposite travel lane for over 20 yards. The officer approached the Defendant’s vehicle and observed a strong odor of alcohol. His eyes were bloodshot and glassy. Defendant’s speech was slurred. The officer was unable to understand some of the Defendant’s statements due to his slurred speech. Defendant admitted to have a “few too many” drinks. Officers administered Field Sobriety Tests, including the One Leg Stand and the Walk and Turn, and determined that he had failed the tests.

Result: Immediately after getting hired, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan requested to have his client evaluated by the Veteran’s Court because his client was a highly decorated combat veteran. This was the first time in the client’s life that he had ever been evaluated by a clinician for the effects caused by his combat experience. For the first time in his life, the client was diagnosed and treated for the effects caused by his horrific combat experience. He was diagnosed with PTSD, Depressive Disorder, and Anxiety, which led to his substance abuse and alcoholism. Attorney Gerald J. Noonan provided the District Attorney’s Office with a breakdown of the client’s entire military service, awards, and decorations. In the Veteran’s Court, the clinicians dug deep into the client’s military experience, which included combat experience in Iraq and Afghanistan. The client was a Platoon leader and two of his closest friends were killed in combat. Attorney Noonan provided numerous character letters, records of his 20 years of employment, and records of his substance abuse treatment. After reviewing all the evidence provided by Attorney Gerald J. Noonan, the Commonwealth agreed to reduce the 4^th offense OUI down to a 2^nd offense OUI. With a 4^th offense OUI, a felony offense, the client was facing a mandatory 2 years in jail. With a reduction to a 2^nd offense, the client is now charged with a misdemeanor. Ultimately, the client was placed on probation, on the reduced charge, with conditions to continue treatment. Client avoided having to serve a mandatory 2 years in jail.

Brockton District Court

SHOPLIFTING CHARGE DISMISSED AT CLERK MAGISTRATE HEARING. CLIENT HAS NO CRIMINAL RECORD RESULTING FROM THE INCIDENT.

 Defendant was arrested by Abington Police and charged with shoplifting (G.L. c. 266, §30A) stemming from an incident at Walmart where she allegedly stole a flat screen TV; claiming to Walmart employee’s that she had already purchased the TV but had forgotten her receipt. Defendant made her way out of the store with the TV and she never came back to return the TV.

Result: At the Clerk’s Hearing, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan presented evidence that the theft was a sudden, impulsive decision by the Defendant, and not a premediated theft. Attorney Noonan presented evidence regarding the client’s background as a college graduate, and she had been gainfully employed for the same company for over seven years. Attorney Noonan presented letters attesting to the client’s character to demonstrate that this incident was an aberration. Defendant expressed extreme remorse for the incident and she immediately paid restitution for the stolen item. The Clerk decided to dismiss the criminal complaint, saving the client from having a criminal record.

Brockton Juvenile Court

ATTORNEY GERALD J. NOONAN GETS ASSAULT & BATTERY CHARGE AGAINST AN INTELLECTUALLY DISABLED JUVENILE DISMISSED AT A CLERK-MAGISTRATE HEARING

The client was a 14 year-old boy from Brockton who punched a security guard while in the emergency room at the Brockton Hospital. The juvenile’s parents received a court summons on a criminal complaint charging their son with an Assault & Battery (G.L. c. 265, §13A).

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan conducted an intensive interview of the juvenile’s parents to obtain all the information regarding the juvenile’s behavioral and mental health history, which was extensive. The juvenile was transferred from the Brockton Hospital emergency room to an inpatient behavioral hospital. Attorney Noonan interviewed the juvenile’s mental health counselor, and obtained hundreds of pages of the juvenile’s treatment records. At the Clerk-Magistrate Hearing, Attorney Noonan presented evidence that his client was diagnosed as being Intellectually Disabled and suffered from a brain injury. Attorney Noonan argued that his client was not competent to stand trial, and was not criminally responsible for his actions due to his mental condition. After the hearing, the criminal complaint did not issue.

Falmouth District Court

A VICTIM OF HARASSMENT HIRES ATTORNEY GERALD J. NOONAN WHO SUCCESSFILLY OBTAINS A HARASSMENT PREVENTION RESTRAINING ORDER AGAINST THE PERPETRATOR.

The client, a stay at home mom and resident of Falmouth, was the subject of harassment from a neighbor. The client reported the incidents of harassment to the police, but the police declined to charge the neighbor with any crimes. It was a she-said he-said scenario and her word against his. The client was the victim of the neighbor’s continuous acts of harassment and she did not feel safe from him. The client would encounter the neighbor regularly and did not feel safe around him.

Result: The client hired Attorney Gerald J. Noonan to obtain a Harassment Prevention Restraining Order against the neighbor. In order to obtain a Harassment Prevention Order under G.L. c. 258E, the Plaintiff has the burden of presenting evidence of at least three incidents of harassment. The statute defines harassment as “3 or more acts of willful and malicious conduct aimed at a specific person committed with the intent to cause fear, intimidation, abuse or damage to property and that does in fact cause fear, intimidation, abuse or damage to property.” After conducting an investigation, Attorney Noonan gathered sufficient evidence to meet his burden of proof. Attorney Noonan was able to obtain a Harassment Prevention Order, which ordered the neighbor to not contact her, to stay away from her, and to refrain from abusing or harassment her.

NO CRIMINAL CHARGES FILED AGAINST SUSPECT IN HIT-AND-RUN ACCIDENT

 Defendant was suspected of striking a parked car on a cul-de-sac and fleeing the scene. The victim located the Defendant’s license plate next to the damaged vehicle. The victim reported the hit-and-run accident to the police who were investigating the incident. The client was facing a potential criminal charge of Leaving the Scene of an Accident Involving Property Damage (G.L. c. 90, §24(2)(a). The client immediately contacted our firm for representation. After contacting our firm, we were able to ensure that the client was not charged with any crimes.

LARCENY CHARGE AGAINST AIR FORCE ACADEMY PREP SCHOOL CADET DISMISSED AT CLERK’S HEARING.

The client was a cadet at the United States Air Force Academy Preparatory School in Colorado. She graduated from high school in Massachusetts as an exemplary student and athlete. Due to her hard-work, strong work ethic, and impressive background, she was accepted to the U.S. Air Force Academy Prep School. Upon her graduation, she will apply to the United States Air Force Academy with aspirations of serving a career in the United States Air Force. She was alleged to have shoplifted items from a department store, and the police department filed an application for criminal complaint against her for larceny under G.L. c. 266, §30.

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan persuades the Clerk-Magistrate to dismiss the criminal complaint for larceny, which was a huge win for this client, as a criminal record would virtually destroy her dreams of serving in the United States Air Force. The client will have no criminal record as a result of this incident.

Dedham District Court

CLIENT FACING MANDATORY JAIL TIME FOR OPERATING UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF ALCOHOL THIRD-OFFENSE BUT ATTORNEY GERALD J. NOONAN GETS CHARGE REDUCED TO SECOND-OFFENSE OUI, SAVING THIS MILITARY VETERAN FROM SERVING 180 DAYS IN JAIL.

Defendant was charged with Operating under the Influence of Alcohol (G.L. c. 90, §24), this being his third offense. The case was un-triable due to overwhelming evidence of the Defendant’s intoxication and guilt. The odds of winning at trial were virtually impossible. Compounding things further, Defendant was convicted of his prior 2nd offense OUI shortly before his arrest on the 3rd offense. Additionally, Defendant was charged with assaulting the police officer during his arrest. Defendant’s prior attorney was unable to secure a favorable deal with the prosecution. As a result, the client contacted Attorney Gerald J. Noonan in hopes of getting a better outcome.

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan started from scratch and sought and obtained as much favorable information about his client as possible, in hopes of securing a good deal with the prosecution. The Defendant served in the military. Attorney Gerald J. Noonan obtained all favorable evidence pertaining to his military service. Defendant struggled with alcohol for years. Attorney Gerald J. Noonan pushed his client to dedicate his life to sobriety and treatment. The client made treatment his top priority. He participated in intensive inpatient and outpatient substance abuse treatment. He passed drug and alcohol tests. He participated in Alcoholics Anonymous almost daily. Attorney Noonan obtained evidence of his AA Attendance, and character letters from his AA sponsor and his AA group. Attorney Noonan presented evidence of the client’s gainful employment as a licensed plumber; operating his own business, and he taught courses for those seeking to become licensed plumbers. He raised three stepchildren, as if they were his own children, and Attorney Noonan obtained character letters from his stepchildren. Defendant also has underlying mental health issues, which had gone unaddressed and, with Attorney Noonan’s help, he began to receive mental health treatment. Attorney Noonan gathered as much favorable evidence as possible, and presented it to the District Attorney’s Office requesting a reduction to a second-offense OUI. The prosecution could see that the Defendant was dedicated to his treatment, and they were convinced of his good-faith efforts in seeking recovery. The prosecution deserves a lot of credit in reviewing all the evidence. They agreed to reduce the felony offense to a misdemeanor, and the client avoided a mandatory jail sentence.

ATTORNEY GERALD J. NOONAN GETS LARCENY CHARGE AGAINST MARINE CORP. VETERAN AND REGISTERED NURSE DISMISSED UPON PROOF THAT SHE DID NOT COMMIT ANY CRIME.

While the Defendant was in a relationship with her boyfriend, her boyfriend placed an advertisement online for the sale of a kitchen table and chair set. An older couple responded to the advertisement, they paid the boyfriend for the furniture and when they arrived to pick up the furniture the boyfriend did not provide the furniture. Defendant had broken up with her boyfriend and she had no knowledge of the incident. The older couple (understandably) was upset because they paid for the furniture and never received it. The older couple filed an Application for Criminal Complaint against the Defendant for Larceny under $1,200 by False Pretense pursuant to G.L. c. 266, §30.

Result: At the Clerk Magistrate Hearing, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan presented evidence that the Defendant did not commit any crime at all – it was her boyfriend who committed the crime. The boyfriend was the person who sold the furniture to the victims, failed to deliver the furniture, and kept the proceeds of the sale. There was no probable cause to charge the Defendant, as she committed no crime.

ATTORNEY GERALD J. NOONAN GETS CRIMINAL COMPLAINT FOR NEGLIGENT OPERATION AGAINST HVAC WORKER DISMISSED AT CLERK’S HEARING IN A CASE INVOLVING A HIGH-SPEED CRASH INTO A TREE.

Police were dispatched to the scene of a motor vehicle accident in which the Defendant’s vehicle was operating at a high rate of speed, lost control on the bend of the road, and crashed into a tree causing the vehicle to flip and spin out of control. Police observed serious damage to the Defendant’s vehicle with enough force to completely tear off the right wheel and axel. The Defendant was bleeding from his arm. The officer conducted a crash investigation and determined that the Defendant was negligent and caused the crash due to his excessive speed on a dangerous roadway. The police filed an Application for Criminal Complaint on a charge of Negligent Operation of a Motor Vehicle pursuant to G.L. c. 90, §24(2)(a), speeding, and marked lanes violation.

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan was able to get the criminal complaint dismissed at the Clerk’s Hearing. Attorney Noonan presented evidence that the Defendant was unfamiliar with the roadway and the roadway lacked warnings, signage, and appropriate lighting alerting motorists as to the dangerousness of the curve in the road. Attorney Noonan presented photographs of the roadway showing no lighting, no marked lanes, no speed limit signs, or any warnings signs about the dangerous curve up ahead. These were mitigating circumstances. Defendant admitted that he was operating negligently, but asked the Court to exercise its discretion based on the Defendant’s lack of criminal record, character evidence, history of gainful employment, supporting his family, and the fact that the Defendant was genuinely remorseful for the accident. Attorney Noonan presented evidence from the Defendant’s employer showing his excellent driving record. The Defendant took and completed a safe driving course and a Brains at Risk program. After the Clerk’s Hearing, the complaint was dismissed.

Taunton District Court

ATTORNEY GERALD J. NOONAN GETS DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CHARGE AGAINST TRUCK DRIVER DISMISSED.

Client is a 52 year old truck driver and Taunton resident. Police were called to the Defendant’s residence for a reported domestic dispute. Upon arrival, the girlfriend told police that the Defendant became angry, grabbed her by both arms, and shoved her against the wall. The girlfriend showed police bruises to her arms, claiming that the bruises were from his fingertips when grabbing her. Defendant denied the allegations. Defendant was charged in the Taunton District Court with Assault & Battery on a Family / Household Member pursuant to G.L. c. 265, §13M(a).

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan scheduled the case for trial and provided the Commonwealth with evidence that the girlfriend was intoxicated and had been drinking liquor while also taking psychiatric medications and the Defendant called the police because she was argumentative. The girlfriend became upset with the Defendant because he called the police on her and she was concerned that she would get into trouble. In fact, the girlfriend never called the police, the defendant did. Defendant contended that the girlfriend made up the allegations because she was upset that the Defendant called the police on her and was worried that she would get into trouble. Defendant contended that the marks on the girlfriend’s arms were old marks that she sustained while performing physical labor at work. The Commonwealth dismissed the case.

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.

CHARGE OF LEAVING THE SCENE OF AN ACCIDENT AGAINST HIGH-SCHOOL STUDENT DISMISSED AT CLERK MAGISTRATE HEARING AS A RESULT OF ATTORNEY GERALD J. NOONAN’S REPRESENTATION. 

Easton Police were dispatched to the scene of a motor vehicle accident wherein the Defendant’s vehicle allegedly fled the scene. Upon arrival, police observed extensive damage to the other vehicle, and the other operator stated that the Defendant fled the scene. Other witnesses reported that the Defendant fled the scene. Police were provided with the license plate of the fleeing vehicle, and responded to the Defendant’s home where he was living with his mother. The Defendant denied causing the accident, and officers did not believe him. Defendant stated that he fled the scene because he didn’t know what to do. As a result, the Defendant was charged with Leaving the Scene of an Accident pursuant to G.L. c. 90, §24(2)(a).

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan was able to get the criminal complaint dismissed at a Clerk-Magistrate Hearing. He presented evidence that the victim’s vehicle damage had been paid by insurance, and that the Defendant completed Safe Driving Courses. Defendant was a juvenile with no criminal record. He is a junior in high school with a great G.P.A., and he is a standout athlete on the varsity hockey team. Attorney Noonan presented character evidence. Attorney Noonan argued that his client, a young kid, was scared after the accident and went directly to his home, only two-miles away, where he told his parents what happened. Defendant and his mother were planning on returning to the scene to exchange information with the other driver, but the police had arrived to their home before they could do so. As the criminal complaint was dismissed, Defendant will have no record. He is planning on attending college.

Ayer District Court

IN A CASE FEATURED IN LAWYER’S WEEKLY, THE NOONAN DEFENSE TEAM WINS MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE AFTER PROVING THAT THE DEFENDANT WAS UNABLE TO PROVIDE POLICE WITH VALID CONSENT TO SEARCH HER HOME BASED ON EXPERT TESTIMONY REGARDING THE DEFENDANT’S LANGUAGE BARRIERS.

Police were dispatched to the Weston Academy High School for a report that a student sent text messages to other students with pictures of a firearm while making suicidal statements. The student admitted to the police that he sent the text messages. The student told police that he took the firearm from his parents and sent pictures of the firearm to his friends. The student told the police that the firearm was currently located in his bedroom at his parents’ home in Westford. Police went to the student’s home where they encountered his mother (defendant) in the driveway. The police showed the mother a Consent to Search Form and they asked her to sign the form giving her consent to allow the police to search her home. After she signed the Consent Form, police searched the home and found the firearm in the son’s bedroom closet. The police proceeded to search the entire home where they recovered additional firearms and ammunition – none of which were properly stored or secured, including an AR-15 assault rifle. As a result of home search, the mother and father were charged with Possession of a Large Capacity Firearm and Possession of a Large Capacity Feeding Device pursuant to G.L. c. 269, §10(m), Possession of Ammunition without F.I.D. Card pursuant to G.L. c. 269, §10(h)(1) and Improper Storage of a Firearm pursuant to G.L. c. 140, §131L. The mother and father were not U.S. citizens and they faced possible deportation if convicted.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan and Attorney Gerald J. Noonan retained an expert witness specializing in English Language Proficiency. The expert interviewed the mother and performed a number of tests to determine her English proficiency, including her ability to speak, read, comprehend, and understand English. The parents were from China and moved to the U.S. four years prior to this incident. The expert determined that the mother met the definition of an LEP (Limited English Proficiency Person), which is defined as an individual who does not speak English as their primary language and who has limited ability to read, speak, write, or understand English. The expert administered a Basic English Skills Test and a Reading Comprehension Test and testified regarding the results. The expert went through the Consent to Search Form signed by the Defendant. The expert determined that the Defendant could not understand the majority of the words on the Consent Form, including: waive, search warrant, constitutional, right, refuse, and voluntary. The expert provided his expert opinion that the Defendant was incapable of reading and understanding the Consent Form. Through cross-examination of the police officer, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan was able to establish that the officer did not read or explain the Consent Form to the Defendant, but merely asked her to sign the form and she acquiesced and signed the form, as she was told. The Court agreed with the Noonan Defense Team and determined that the Defendant was unable to provide valid consent for the search of her home, and the Court suppressed all evidence (all firearms and ammunition) obtained as a result of the search of the home. As a result of the suppressed evidence, the Commonwealth was forced to dismiss the case. The case was featured in a publication of Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly.

ATTORNEY GERALD J. NOONAN GETS CRIMINAL COMPLAINT FOR CARRYING A DANGEROUS WEAPON ON SCHOOL GROUNDS AGAINST SHEET METAL WORKER DISMISSED AT CLERK’S HEARING.

Police received a report that an adult male, parked in a vehicle in the school parking lot, was in possession of a firearm. A teacher observed that the Defendant had a firearm tucked in his waistband, which became visible when the Defendant was rummaging through tools in the back of his truck. The Defendant was parked in the student pick-up line waiting to pick his daughter up from school. Police arrived and spoke with the Defendant, as he was parked in the student pick-up line. Defendant was polite and cooperative. Defendant had a valid License to Carry Firearms. He admitted to the police that he had a firearm on his person. He apologized and stated that he was unaware of the regulation around a firearm on school grounds. The police seized his firearm and filed an Application for Criminal Complaint against the Defendant for the offense of Carrying a Dangerous Weapon on School Grounds pursuant to G.L. c. 269, §10(j).

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan was able to get the criminal complaint dismissed at a Clerk-Magistrate Hearing resulting in no criminal charges against the client. Attorney Noonan presented evidence that the Defendant had his firearm holstered on his waistband and he never intended to exit his vehicle, or walk on school grounds, while picking up his daughter at school. Defendant briefly exited his vehicle to rearrange tools in the back of his vehicle when the firearm on his waistband became visible. Defendant was extremely apologetic and cooperative. Attorney Noonan showed that this was a simple mistake with no criminal intentions. Attorney Noonan pointed out that his client is a 53 year-old man with no criminal record who has never been in any trouble in his life. For 34 years, he has worked as a union sheet metal worker. Attorney Noonan presented letters from several persons attesting to the Defendant’s character. After hearing Attorney Noonan’s evidence and arguments, the Clerk-Magistrate dismissed the criminal complaint and the client was never charged with a crime. Additionally, the client’s License to Carry Firearms was not suspended.

CHARGE OF NEGLIGENT OPERATION AGAINST MECHANICAL ENGINEER DISMISSED AT CLERK’S HEARING UPON ATTORNEY GERALD J. NOONAN’S EFFECTIVE REPRESENTATION.

Police were dispatched to the scene of an accident in which the client’s vehicle struck a telephone pole. The officer observed that the client’s pupils were constricted, his speech was thick and slow, and his responses were delayed. Defendant admitted to taking Lorazepam and other medications for his anxiety. The client was unsteady on his feet. Two witnesses told police that the Defendant’s vehicle was swerving over the double yellow line several times before swerving into the telephone pole without ever coming to a stop. Police noted that the client has a history of incidents involving prescription medications and alcohol abuse. Client’s wife told the police that he was recently discharged from the hospital and he had recently made suicidal statements. Defendant was charged with Negligent Operation of a Motor Vehicle pursuant to G.L. c. 90, §24(2)(a).

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan presented evidence that his client took a safe driving course and another course known as Brains at Risk. Attorney referenced the client’s impressive resume as a mechanical engineer and his clean driving record. Attorney Noonan presented evidence showing that the client was legally prescribed anxiety medication and he had taken the medication in the proper dosage.

ATTORNEY GERALD J. NOONAN GETS CRIMINAL COMPLAINTS AGAINST U.S. POSTAL WORKER FOR THREATENING TO SHOOT HIS GIRLFRIEND’S FATHER DISMISSED AT A CLERK MAGISTRATE HEARING.

The parents of the Defendant’s girlfriend did not like him. The parents believed that the Defendant was abusive to their daughter. The parents claimed that the Defendant beat their daughter with a phone charger. The father went to the Defendant’s home to confront him. The father observed a firearm on the kitchen counter. The father alleged that the Defendant threatened to shoot him with the firearm on the kitchen counter. The father claimed that the Defendant threatened him should the father call the police. As a result, the police filed an Application for Criminal Complaint against the Defendant for two counts of Threats to Commit a Crime pursuant to G.L. c. 275, §2.

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan was able to get the criminal complaints dismissed at the Clerk’s Hearing. The girlfriend’s parents wanted the Defendant charged with the crimes. Attorney Noonan presented evidence showing that the parents’ belief that the Defendant was abusive to their daughter was unfounded. Attorney Noonan presented evidence from the girlfriend that the Defendant was never abusive towards her – seriously undermining the abuse complaints by her parents. The parents had an axe to grind against the Defendant. They did not like him and they did not want him dating their daughter and they had a strong motive to have the Defendant charged with a crime. Attorney Noonan attacked the credibility of the parents, and showed that the Defendant never abused their daughter, contrary to their claims. After a Clerk-Magistrate Hearing, the complaint was dismissed.

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.

CHARGE OF IMPROPER STORAGE OF A FIREARM AGAINST GOVERNMENT WORKER WITH NO CRIMINAL RECORD DISMISSED AT CLERK’S HEARING UPON ATTORNEY GERALD J. NOONAN’S EFFECTIVE REPRESENTATION.

Fall River Police were dispatched for a report of a stolen firearm. Upon arrival, Police spoke with the Defendant, who was distraught, and he reported that his firearm was missing from his vehicle. Defendant stated that he had his firearm in his vehicle and placed it in his center console while doing Christmas shopping. When he returned home from shopping, he could not locate his firearm in his vehicle, so he reported the missing firearm to police. As a result, Defendant was charged with Improper Storage of a Firearm pursuant to G.L. c. 140, §131L.

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan was able to get the criminal complaint dismissed at the Clerk Magistrate Hearing. Defendant has no criminal record and he has been employed by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts for many years. Defendant and his wife are both social workers. Attorney Noonan presented six letters attesting to the Defendant’s character. The client has had a License to Carry Firearms for many years and has always been a responsible gun-owner. In this case, the Defendant made a mistake by leaving his firearm unattended in his vehicle for a short period of time, but he reported the disappearance of the firearm immediately upon his discovery. Although there may have been probable cause to support the criminal charge, the Clerk-Magistrate agreed with Attorney Noonan’s request to dismiss the charge.

ATTORNEY GERALD J. NOONAN GETS CRIMINAL COMPLAINT FOR LEAVING THE SCENE OF AN ACCIDENT AGAINST FED-EX DRIVER DISMISSED AT CLERK MAGISTRATE HEARING.

Police were dispatched in response to a call that a Fed-Ex truck had struck a fire hydrant and left the area. A witness told the police that she took a photo of the Fed-Ex truck, as he left the scene of the accident. The officer observed that the fire hydrant was cracked and a valve had broken off. Police queried the license plate and spoke with the business owning the truck. Police spoke with the Defendant who admitted to striking the fire hydrant. As a result of the incident, police filed an Application for Criminal Complaint against the Defendant for Leaving the Scene of an Accident Causing Property Damage pursuant to G.L. c. 90, §24(2)(a).

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan was able to get the criminal complaint dismissed at the Clerk-Magistrate Hearing. Attorney Noonan presented evidence showing that the client immediately reported the accident to his manager who instructed him to continue making his deliveries. His manager informed him that the business would report the accident to the police. The client relied on the representations of his employer and did not report the accident to police because he had been told that the business would report the accident. His manager told the police that he advised the Defendant to continue with his deliveries. The manager told the Defendant that the company would pay for the damage to the fire hydrant. Attorney Noonan presented evidence of his client’s stellar driving record, as well as character letters from his employer describing him as a hard-working and trustworthy employee. As the client was a professional delivery driver, a criminal complaint for Leaving the Scene of an Accident would potentially ruin his career. However, Attorney Noonan was able to ensure that no criminal charges issued and his driving record remained intact and he was able to continue his employment as a professional delivery driver.

LARCENY CHARGE AGAINST COLLEGE FRESHMAN WITH NO CRIMINAL RECORD DISMISSED AT CLERK MAGISTRATE HEARING UPON ATTORNEY GERALD J. NOONAN’S REPRESENTATION.

Quincy Police were dispatched to Walmart for a shoplifting incident by an employee, the Defendant who admitted to the police that he had stolen various items. It was alleged that the Defendant, and other employees, were part of a scheme of stealing and hiding items. As a result, Defendant was charged with Larceny under $1,200 pursuant to G.L. c. 266, §30C.

Result: At a Clerk Magistrate Hearing, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan argued that his client should have been charged as a juvenile, as he was under the age of 18 at the time of the offenses. The client graduated from high school with a great G.P.A. and was a member of the Chess Team and was on the varsity Track Team. Defendant is presently a freshman in college majoring in Computer Technology. He also obtained his real estate license and worked for a real estate agency while attending college, which he used to pay his tuition. Evidence showed that the other employees were more culpable in the thefts. Attorney Gerald J. Noonan was able to get the criminal complaint dismissed at the Clerk’s Hearing, and his client will have no criminal record, as a criminal record would have seriously affected this young man’s life.

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CHARGE AGAINST ENGINEER DISMISSED AT CLERK MAGISTRATE HEARING UPON ATTORNEY GERALD J. NOONAN’S REPRESENTATION.

Abington Police were dispatched to a residence for a reported domestic violence incident. Upon arrival, police spoke with the Defendant’s wife who alleged that the Defendant punched her in the face. Police observed an open wound to the alleged victim’s eyes, and observed that she was visibly upset and crying. Photographs were taken of the injuries to the alleged victim’s face. As a result, Defendant was charged with Assault and Battery on a Family / Household Member pursuant to G.L. c. 265, §13M.

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan was able to get the criminal complaint dismissed at the Clerk-Magistrate Hearing where Attorney Noonan asserted that the alleged victim had a Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination and that she would be invoking her Marital Privilege by refusing to testify against her husband at trial. Attorney Noonan argued that, without the alleged victim’s testimony, there was insufficient evidence to prove that his client committed the Assault and Battery. The client had no criminal record. He has been gainfully employed as a Distribution Manager with a career goal of obtaining a professional engineering license. The issuance of a criminal complaint would have affected the Defendant’s ability to obtain a professional engineering license, and his ability to obtain future employment, all necessary to support his wife and two children. Attorney Noonan presented numerous character letters. After considering all the evidence, the Clerk-Magistrate dismissed the criminal complaint.

ATTORNEY GERALD J. NOONAN SUCCESSFULLY DEFENDS MAN WHO ACCIDENTALLY DISCHARGED HIS FIREARM WITH A STRAY BULLET STRIKING HIS NEIGHBOR’S HOUSE.

Police were dispatched to a residence in response to a report from a homeowner that a bullet was shot through the house and into the living room. The bullet was found inside the home on the floor of the living room. There was a bullet hole in the wall to the home. Police identified the bullet as a 9mm full metal jacket. Police interviewed the neighbor, the Defendant, who admitted that he accidentally discharged the firearm in his backyard. As a result, Defendant was charged with Discharging a Firearm within 500 Feet of a Dwelling (G.L. c. 269, §12E), Improper Storage of a Firearm (G.L. c. 140, §131L), and Defacing Property (G.L. c. 266, §126).

Result: At a Clerk-Magistrate Hearing, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan was able to get the criminal complaints dismissed after a period of time, so long as the Defendant abides by certain conditions. Attorney Noonan argued that the client accidentally discharged the firearm while handling it inside the shed of his backyard. Attorney Gerald J. Noonan spoke with the victim-homeowner who was agreeable to Attorney Noonan’s proposed disposition. The client is a 64 year-old man with no criminal record and professional truck driver.

ATTORNEY GERALD J. NOONAN SUCCESSFULLY DEFENDS MILITARY VETERAN CHARGED WITH DRUG POSSESSION.

Police were conducting surveillance and their attention was drawn to a vehicle parked in a parking lot. Officers observed two males in the vehicle looking down and manipulating something. Officers approached the vehicle and observed the Defendant cutting white powder with a credit card on top of a clipboard. Police searched the vehicle and recovered cocaine. Defendant admitted that the cocaine belonged to him. As a result, Defendant was charged with Possession of Class B Substance pursuant to G.L. c. 90, §32A.

Result: At a Clerk-Magistrate Hearing, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan was able to get the criminal complaint dismissed, so long as the Defendant stayed out of trouble for three months. Attorney Noonan presented evidence that his client, a 26 year-old man with no criminal record, served in the United States Marine Corps. Defendant was highly decorated and was honorably discharged. Attorney Noonan presented evidence showing that his client passed numerous drug tests. The clerk agreed to dismiss the complaint after three-months, so long as the client stays out of trouble.

ATTORNEY GERALD J. NOONAN SUCCESSFULLY DEFENDS MAN CHARGED WITH AIRPORT SECURITY VIOLATION WHERE A FIREARM WAS FOUND IN HIS TRAVEL BAG UPON INSPECTION.

The Defendant went to the airport with his wife and children. They were traveling out-of-state because his son was participating in a sporting competition. While security was checking his bag at the airport, they discovered a handgun. As a result, Defendant was charged with Airport Security Violation pursuant to G.L. c. 269, §12F(b).

Result: At the Clerk-Magistrate Hearing, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan was able to get the criminal complaint dismissed. Attorney Noonan argued that the Defendant inadvertently left his firearm in his travel and he forgot that his firearm was in his travel bag when he went to the airport. When notified of the discovery, Defendant was extremely cooperative and apologetic. Security seized the firearm and allowed the Defendant and his family to get on their flight. Defendant is 59 year-old with no criminal record.

Taunton District Court

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Brookline District Court

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

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

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

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

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

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

Brockton District Court

ATTORNEY GERALD J. NOONAN GETS FELONY AND MISDEMEANOR LARCENY CHARGES DISMISSED PRIOR TO ARRAIGNMENT.

The client is a 26 year-old woman with no criminal record. It was alleged that she had taken three American Eagle packages that were delivered to an apartment complex, addressed to another resident of the apartment building. Upon investigation, the client admitted to the police that she had stolen the packages. The client was charged with the felony offense of Larceny from Building (G.L. c. 266, §20) and misdemeanor Larceny under $1,200 (G.L. c. 266, §30).Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan was able to convince the prosecutor’s office to grant his client Pretrial Diversion, something the Commonwealth will only do in special circumstances. With Pretrial Diversion, the Defendant is not arraigned on the offenses. With an arraignment, the charges are entered onto the client’s criminal record. Attorney Gerald J. Noonan was successful in postponing the arraignment and, if the client satisfied certain terms and conditions, the prosecutor’s office would dismiss the charges prior to arraignment. The client fulfilled all the terms and conditions, and the charges were dismissed prior to arraignment. Therefore, this 26 year-old, new mother, health-care worker, and person with no prior criminal record, will not have any criminal charges on her record.

Quincy District Court

ATTORNEY GERALD J. NOONAN WINS DISMISSAL OF ASSAULT & BATTERY CHARGES AGAINST FATHER AND SON ARISING OUT OF A GROUP FIGHT ON A PARTY BUS. 

Defendants, father and son, were on a party bus. They were celebrating the birthday of their mother / wife by treating her to an evening on a bus, which visits local restaurants and drinking establishments. There were other people on the party bus. The other group members were very intoxicated; they were loud, and disruptive. The son asked the group to refrain from using profanities and vulgarities because they were trying to have a nice evening with the family. The other group members were shouting at the driver to turn up the music. An argument, which turned physical, ensued between the two groups. During this altercation, members of the other group alleged that both defendants were aggressive, and started a fight, and threw punches. A female member of the other group was punched in the face and she sustained a bloody nose. Defendants denied starting the fight and denied punching the female. Both defendants were charged with Assault & Battery (G.L. c. 265, §13A). Attorney Gerald J. Noonan represented both clients at a Clerk-Magistrate Hearing, but despite his zealous advocacy the clerk found that there was sufficient evidence to charge them. The clerk found that the issues raised by Attorney Noonan were trial issues. Attorney Gerald J. Noonan prepared the case for trial. On the day of trial, all charges were dismissed against the Defendants.

Brockton District Court

ATTORNEY GERALD J. NOONAN CONVINCES CLERK-MAGISTRATE TO DISMISS ASSAULT & BATTERY COMPLAINT UPON PROOF THAT THE ALLEGED VICTIM WAS THE AGGRESSOR WHO INITIATED THE CONFRONTATION. 

Defendant is a man with no criminal record. He was having dinner and some drinks at his favorable pub where he was a regular. On prior occasions, pub employees complained about the conduct of another patron. In particular, a female employee had complained about this patron before. On this occasion, the client happened to be seated next to this troublesome patron. The client began to videotape the patron to send to the female employee. Enraged at being recorded, the patron grabbed the client’s cell phone, causing both men to fall off their bar stools, knocking over a female patron in the process. Defendant was charged with Assault & Battery (G.L. c. 265, §13A).Result: At a Clerk-Magistrate Hearing, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan argued that there was insufficient probable cause to charge the client with Assault & Battery because the evidence showed that the other patron was the aggressor who initiated the confrontation, and the client merely acted reflexively in response to the other patron grabbing and pulling at his cell phone. The client had no intent to commit any touching, as his actions were purely reactionary to having his cell phone grabbed and pulled out of his hand. The Clerk-Magistrate did not issue any criminal complaint against our client. Therefore, the client does not have any criminal record arising out of this incident.

Quincy District Court

ATTORNEY GERALD J. NOONAN GETS OUI-DRUGS CASE DISMISSED AFTER CONVINCING THE COURT THAT THERE WAS INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO PROVE THAT THE DEFENDANT’S IMPAIRMENT WAS CAUSED BY METHAMPHETAMINE FOUND IN HIS VEHICLE. 

Defendant was charged with Operating under the Influence of Drugs (G.L. c. 90, §24(1)(a)(1)). Police received a report of an erratic operator. Police received another report of a person slumped over the steering wheel of the same vehicle in a parking lot. Upon arrival, Defendant was slumped over the steering wheel and was unresponsive. The officer believed that the Defendant was experiencing the effects of drug use. Defendant denied taking any drugs. In the Defendant’s vehicle, they found plastic bags containing Methamphetamine and glass pipes used to smoke this substance. Defendant was transported to the hospital. Defendant was also charged with Possession of Methamphetamine.

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan obtained the Defendant’s certified medical records, which lacked any laboratory or toxicology tests to show that the Defendant had any drugs in his system. The Commonwealth argued that the Defendant’s impairment was caused by the methamphetamine found in the Defendant’s vehicle. However, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan argued that the Commonwealth would be unable to prove that the Methamphetamine caused the Defendant’s impairment because none of the officers at the scene were qualified to render any such opinion to connect the effects of this drug use to the symptoms exhibited by the Defendant. As a result, all charges against the Defendant were dismissed.

Wareham District Court

ATTORNEY GERALD J. NOONAN GETS CHARGES OF LEAVING THE SCENE OF AN ACCIDENT, UNREGISTERED VEHICLE, AND UNINSURED VEHICLE DISMISSED PRIOR TO ARRAIGNMENT AGAINST MEMBER OF THE AIR FORCE. 

Defendant was charged with Leaving the Scene of an Accident (G.L. c. 90, §24(2)(a)), Unregistered Motor Vehicle (G.L. c. 90, §9), and Uninsured Motor Vehicle (G.L. c. 90, §34J). Police alleged that the Defendant struck a telephone and did not report the accident. Attorney Gerald J. Noonan presented evidence that the Defendant was traveling on an unfamiliar dangerous road when he struck a telephone. Attorney Noonan provided photographs showing that the Defendant merely grazed the pole, with extremely minor damage. Defendant immediately called his insurance company and reported the accident. Defendant even remained on scene until the tow truck arrived. Defendant told the police that he did not think that he had to report the accident because another vehicle was not involved in the accident and he immediately reported it to his insurance company. Attorney Noonan provided information from witnesses to corroborate the Defendant’s version.

Brockton Juvenile Court

NO CRIMINAL COMPLAINT ISSUES FOR BREAKING & ENTERING, AS ATTORNEY GERALD J. NOONAN ARGUES THAT THERE WAS LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE CHARGE. 

The Client, a 16 year-old high school student and non-U.S. citizen, was charged with Breaking and Entering, after police caught him and others inside a vacant building. At a clerk-magistrate hearing, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan argued that there was legally insufficient evidence to support the offense, including insufficient evidence that the juvenile “broke” into the building because the building was vacant, abandoned, the doors were open, there were no obstructions to access, and the juvenile did not have to exert any physical force to enter the building. Going through an unobstructed entrance such as an open door does not constitute “breaking.” After considering all arguments and evidence presented by Attorney Noonan, the clerk-magistrate did not issue the criminal complaint. This was a significant victory because the client is not a U.S. citizen, and the client will not have any criminal record as a result of this case.

NO CRIMINAL COMPLAINT ISSUED AGAINST COLLEGE FRESHMAN FOR BEING A MINOR IN POSSESSION OF ALCOHOL AND NO CRIMINAL CHARGE ENTERED ON HER RECORD

Client, an 18 year-old freshman student at Bridgewater State University, was caught carrying a duffel bag containing alcohol into a dormitory. Prior to her Clerk-Magistrate Hearing, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan had his client take the proactive approach of completing a brief alcohol education and intervention program. At the Clerk-Magistrate Hearing, Attorney Noonan presented the Clerk with a Certificate of Completion from the brief alcohol program. In addition, Attorney Noonan presented evidence with regards to his client’s background, which included being an honor student at Boston Latin, a 4-year varsity athlete, and a volunteer worker teaching Catholic education to young children.

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan persuades the Clerk-Magistrate to dismiss the criminal complaint of being a minor in possession of alcohol. Attorney Noonan saves his young client from having a criminal record and avoids any school disciplinary proceedings.

NO CRIMINAL COMPLAINT ISSUED AGAINST MOTHER WHO ALLEGEDLY PERMITTED 50 PLUS MINORS TO CONSUME ALCOHOL ON HER PREMISES DURING A LOUD, DISRUPTIVE PARTY.

Sharon police were dispatched to the Defendant’s residence due to several calls reporting “explosions.” Upon arrival to the residence, police heard fireworks. There were approximately 50-75 underage youths in the backyard consuming alcohol. Police observed 20-30 empty beer cans and there was vomit on the back porch. Defendant was the homeowner and she was hosting a birthday party for her 17 year-old daughter. One underage youth was seen vomiting and this youth admitted to having consumed too much alcohol. This was the second incident in which police responded to this residence for a similar issue.

Result: At a Clerk-Magistrate’s Hearing, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan introduced extensive evidence regarding steps his client has made to address the issue. For example, his client sought counseling and education regarding successful parenting and underage drinking. In addition, Attorney Noonan presented letters from 7 different people attesting to his client’s character. Finally, Attorney Noonan argued that the issuance of a criminal complaint would jeopardize his client’s employment as a Choir Director, a position she has held for over six years. After considering all the evidence and arguments presented by Attorney Gerald J. Noonan, the Clerk-Magistrate dismissed the criminal complaint.

ATTORNEY GERALD J. NOONAN SAVES HIS CLIENT FROM SERVING 6 MONTHS IN JAIL FOR VIOLATING HIS PROBATION.

Client was charged with a third offense for drunk driving, an offense carrying a minimum mandatory jail sentence of five months. After extensive negotiations, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan persuaded the District Attorney to reduce the third offense to a second offense thereby saving the client from serving a mandatory jail sentence. As part of the agreed-upon sentence, client was placed on probation for three years with one condition being that he submits to random alcohol testing. If the client violated the terms of his probation, he would have to serve 6 months in jail. During his probation, the client tested positive for alcohol. Due to this probation violation, client was immediately detained by probation and sent to the house of correction.

Result: The client was facing a six-month jail sentence for violating the terms of his probation by testing positive for alcohol. From the house of correction, client called Attorney Gerald J. Noonan. Immediately, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan requested a hearing. At the hearing, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan was able to negotiate a deal in exchange for his client’s immediate release from jail. As part of the deal, client was placed on a mobile alcohol testing unit called Scram and ordered to attend 2 AA meetings per week. Even though he violated his probation, Attorney Noonan was able to ensure that his client’s original probationary sentence of 3 years was not extended.

ATTORNEY GERALD J. NOONAN GETS SHOPLIFTING CHARGE AGAINST HABITUAL OFFENDER DISMISSED OUTRIGHT AT FIRST COURT DATE.

Client was a habitual shoplifter having been convicted for shoplifting well over three times. On this occasion, client was at JC Penny where she was observed by Loss Prevention removing the tag to a bottle of cologne and concealing the bottle of cologne in her purse. The client passed by all cash registers, exited the store, and was apprehended by Loss Prevention. She admitted to having stolen the bottle of cologne. Prior to this case, the client served eight months in the House of Correction for having been convicted of shoplifting, as a repeat offender. At a Clerk’s Hearing, JC Penny requested that the criminal complaint issue, even though the item was returned and the client paid restitution.

Result: Client was facing the very real prospect of jail time because she had been previously convicted for shoplifting on at least three prior occasions and served 8 months in jail for shoplifting in the past. Attorney Gerald J. Noonan was able to get the shoplifting charge dismissed outright at the first court date and saved his client from serving another jail sentence.

SHOPLIFTING: DISMISSED ON FIRST COURT DATE

A Walpole Police Officer was conducting a security check in the parking lot of Walmart when his attention was drawn to a white male (defendant) who was acting suspiciously. The male was walking quickly to his vehicle, jumped in his vehicle, and kept looking at the officer’s police cruiser. The officer followed the defendant’s vehicle, which was speeding away. During the pursuit, the officer received a dispatch about a recent shoplifting at Walmart. The officer stopped the Defendant’s vehicle. Defendant told the officer that he was doing some shopping at Walmart and forgot to pay for some items. Police obtained surveillance video footage showing the defendant stealing items from Walmart, loading the items in his vehicle, and driving away. Defendant had a 5-page criminal record with convictions for theft crimes, drug crimes, and violent crimes.

Result: Despite the client’s lengthy criminal record, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan was able to get the Shoplifting charge dismissed upon payment of court costs on the first court date. Attorney Noonan argued that there were mitigating circumstances. Defendant had been battling some mental health issues for a long time. After he was charged with this offense, Defendant sought and received treatment for his mental illnesses for the first time. Defendant was the primary caregiver for his elderly mother. Prior to exiting the store, the client voluntarily returned all the items.

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.

SHOPLIFTING CHARGE AGAINST 32-YEAR-OLD SINGLE MOTHER DISMISSED AT CLERK’S HEARING

Brockton Police were dispatched to Walmart for a report of shoplifting. Police observed surveillance video footage of a suspect (believed to be the defendant) stealing numerous items and leaving the store. Loss Prevention Officers confronted the suspect, as she was leaving the store but the suspect fled in her vehicle. Loss Prevention took down the license plate of the vehicle. The vehicle came back to a Brockton resident. Police questioned and showed the vehicle’s owner a photo of the suspect from the surveillance video. The vehicle’s owner identified the suspect as the Defendant. Loss Prevention Officers reported that the suspect has stolen items in the past.

Result: At the Clerk Magistrate’s Hearing, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan convinced the Clerk-Magistrate to dismiss the criminal complaint. Defendant paid restitution for the stolen items. Defendant is a 32-ear-old single mother with no criminal record. She works full time at an Addiction Treatment Center and attends college at night with hopes of getting a better job in the medical field.

THREATS TO COMMIT CRIME: DISMISSED at CLERK’S HEARING

The defendant went to business to donate two mattresses. After the defendant unloaded the mattresses, an employee informed the defendant that the business does not accept mattresses with box springs. According to the employee, the defendant became angry and threatened him by saying, “Is this worth it? Do you want me to kick your ass?” The employee told the defendant that he was reporting the threat to his manager. When the employee returned with his manager, they observed the defendant leave in his pickup truck. The employee called the police, reported the threat, and provided police with the license plate of the pickup truck. The defendant was charged with Threats to Commit a Crime for making the threat to the employee.

Result: At a Clerk Magistrate Hearing, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan argued that the alleged victim misunderstood the defendant’s statement and took it out of context. In actuality, the defendant said to the employee, “Is this worth it? I don’t want to get into a fight over this.” As Attorney Noonan argued, this statement does not constitute a “threat” under the law because the defendant did not “express an intent to injure” the employee. Based on Attorney Gerald J. Noonan’s arguments, the clerk magistrate dismissed the criminal complaint.

IMPROPER STORAGE of FIREARM: DISMISSED AT CLERK’S HEARING

Defendant was a retired 62 year-old grandfather of three with no criminal record. It was alleged that the Defendant negligently left his loaded revolver in a public bathroom.

Result: At a Clerk Magistrate Hearing, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan persuaded the Clerk-Magistrate not to issue the criminal complaint against his client. The Clerk-Magistrate accepted Attorney Gerald J. Noonan’s proposal to dismiss the criminal complaint after six-months, so long as the Defendant does not commit any offenses. The criminal complaint will be dismissed on January 21, 2017, so long as the Defendant does not commit any new offenses.

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.

ASSAULT & BATTERY: DISMISSED / RELEASED FROM JAIL
A & B with DANGEROUS WEAPON: DISMISSED / RELEASED FROM JAIL
DESTRUCTION OF PROPERTY: DISMISSED / RELEASED FROM JAIL

Defendant’s girlfriend called 911 to report that she had been assaulted by the Defendant and she was bleeding. The girlfriend told police that the Defendant started a verbal argument and he pushed her into a fish-tank causing the glass from the fish-tank to shatter. The girlfriend told police that pieces of the shattered glass were lodged in her body. She attempted to call 911 but the Defendant threw her cell phone to the ground and fled the apartment. Police observed the Defendant running in the area and they arrested him. Defendant was charged with Assault & Battery, Assault & Battery with a Dangerous Weapon, and Malicious Destruction of Property. Defendant was arraigned on these charges and released on personal recognizance.

While his case was pending, Defendant was arrested and charged with Assault & Battery (subsequent offense) and Malicious Destruction of Property stemming from a completely separate incident with his family. Police were dispatched to the residence of the Defendant’s parents for an Assault & Battery. Upon arrival, Defendant’s brother told police that the Defendant had punched him in the face. Police observed redness and swelling to the brother’s face. Defendant’s mother told police that the Defendant attacked her by grabbing her hair and attempting to push her down. Defendant’s father told police that the Defendant wrestled him to the ground. Police observed that the father had redness to his back and neck. The new offenses were eventually dismissed for lack of prosecution.

Because the Defendant committed these new offenses while his previous case was pending, the Commonwealth moved to revoke the Defendant’s bail. On 04/20/16, the Court revoked the Defendant’s bail and the Defendant was placed in custody. Defendant was facing 90 days in the house of correction because his bail was revoked by virtue of the new offenses.

Result: Defendant retained Attorney Gerald J. Noonan while he was in custody at the house of correction. Immediately, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan marked the original case for trial. Attorney Gerald J. Noonan obtained exculpatory text messages sent to the Defendant’s cell phone by his ex-girlfriend, the alleged victim – as well as exculpatory voice mails left on the Defendant’s cell phone by the alleged victim. Attorney Gerald J. Noonan located a witness who had been in a relationship with the alleged victim. This witness was willing to testify that the alleged victim had made threats to falsely accuse of him of crimes if she didn’t receive certain things in return from the witness. That is, if the witness did not comply with her demands, she would call the police and falsely accuse him of a crime. This was precisely the situation in the Defendant’s case. In the Defendant’s case, the alleged victim called 911 and falsely accused the Defendant of these crimes because the Defendant was unwilling to give in to the alleged victim’s demands. The evidence obtained by Attorney Gerald J. Noonan presented Fifth Amendment issues for the alleged victim because she would have incriminated herself when testifying against the Defendant at trial. On the day of trial, all criminal charges were dismissed and the Defendant was released from custody.

DANGEROUSNESS HEARING: RELEASED FROM CUSTODY

Fall River Police were dispatched to the scene of a motor vehicle crash involving two vehicles. Officers observed front-end damage to the Defendant’s vehicle. Officers observed rear-end damage to the second vehicle. The operator of the second vehicle told police that he pulled over to the right-hand side of the road to take a phone call when he was rear-ended by the Defendant’s vehicle. The other operator had to assist the Defendant from his vehicle. The other operator told police that he believed the Defendant to be intoxicated. Upon speaking with the Defendant, police immediately observed a strong odor of alcohol, glazed eyes, and slurred speech. Defendant agreed to participate in field sobriety tests. Defendant failed all the field sobriety tests. Defendant was placed under arrest for OUI-Liquor, Negligent Operation, and Marked Lanes Violation. During booking, police discovered that the Defendant had three prior convictions for OUI-Liquor with the most recent conviction being in 2015. Defendant was arraigned on the charge of OUI-Liquor Subsequent Offense. Because this was the Defendant’s fourth offense for OUI-Liquor, the Commonwealth moved to have the Defendant held in custody during the pendency of his case under the Dangerousness Statute. The Commonwealth argued that: based upon the nature of the offense and the Defendant’s criminal history, no conditions of release would reasonably assure the safety of the community. If successful, the Defendant could be held in custody for up to 180 days.

Result: At the conclusion of the dangerousness hearing, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan was successful in persuading the court to release the Defendant from custody. Attorney Gerald J. Noonan argued that there were conditions that the court could impose that would reasonably assure the safety of the community. Attorney Gerald J. Noonan advocated that the court impose certain strict conditions that would reasonably assure the safety of the community. The Judge adopted Attorney Noonan’s recommendation and released the Defendant upon certain strict conditions. As a result, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan saved his client from serving considerable jail time (up to 180 days), as his case was pending.

DISTURBING THE PEACE: DISMISSED PRIOR TO ARRAIGNMENT
TRESPASSING: DISMISSED PRIOR TO ARRAIGNMENT

Boston police were dispatched for a large fight in progress outside a night club. Upon arrival, officers had to immediately intervene to break up the large fight. Defendant was involved in the large fight. Police broke up the large fight and ordered that everyone disperse from the area. An officer specifically told the Defendant to leave the area. Defendant ran around the officer and attacked another party who he had been fighting with prior to police arriving. Defendant was placed under arrest. The Defendant was born, raised, and permanently resides in Saudi Arabia. This incident occurred when the Defendant was in the United States visiting friends. Defendant was a full time college student at the time attending a University in Canada majoring in Bilingual Business Economics.

Result: Prior to the Defendant’s arraignment, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan amassed a wealth of evidence attesting to his client’s outstanding character and submitted it to the DA’s Office requesting that the criminal charges be dismissed prior to arraignment. Attorney Noonan provided the DA’s Office with letters from three different companies where the Defendant had completed internships. Defendant completed internships with worldwide marketing companies. All letters attested that the Defendant was a very responsible, loyal, and hard-working intern. Attorney Noonan submitted the Defendant’s college transcripts showing that he was an honor student. After considering all the favorable information provided by Attorney Gerald J. Noonan, the DA’s Office agreed to dismiss the criminal complaints prior to arraignment. This was a considerable victory because the Defendant was a college student with a great future ahead of him and these criminal charges will not appear on his record.

ASSAULT & BATTERY: PRETRIAL PROBATION
DISORDERLY CONDUCT: PRETRIAL PROBATION

Police at UMASS-Dartmouth were on patrol when they heard yelling and observed a fight in progress outside a college apartment. The fight involved a large number of people. Immediately, an officer attempted to stop the fight by identifying himself as a police officer and ordering the parties to stop. Upon his command, the majority of the crowd dispersed and ran away. Despite his commands, the officer observed two males on top of a male victim and they were punching and kicking the victim. The two male aggressors and the male victim all ran away, as the officer approached them. Officers pursued the males in a foot chase. Officers eventually apprehended the Defendant but were unable to catch the other parties. At the station, Defendant admitted to consuming 6-8 beers. Officers observed blood and markings on the Defendant’s knuckles. Defendant told police that he observed a fight break out involving his friend. Defendant stated that he intervened to break up the fight and assist his friend. Defendant admitted to throwing punches and hitting the male victim. Defendant was immediately suspended from UMASS-Dartmouth.

Result: After his arraignment, Defendant’s parents contacted Attorney Gerald J. Noonan. Attorney Gerald J. Noonan amassed a wealth of evidence attesting to his client’s outstanding character and submitted it to the District Attorney’s Office requesting that the DA’s Office place his client on Pretrial Probation. Attorney Gerald J. Noonan submitted the Defendant’s college transcripts showing that he was an Honor Student. Attorney Noonan submitted a glowing letter of recommendation from the Defendant’s College Football Coach. In addition, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan discovered evidence showing that his client never kicked the male victim during the fight. Attorney Gerald J. Noonan worked with the Campus Police and other school officials and they supported Attorney Noonan’s request for Pretrial Probation. At his first court appearance, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan reached an agreement with the Commonwealth that the criminal charges would be dismissed upon the Defendant’s completion of community service. This was a significant victory, which allowed the Defendant to return to school the following semester and complete his college education. With this disposition, the Defendant did not have to admit guilt and the charges will be dismissed outright so long as he completes his community service.

ASSAULT & BATTERY: DISMISSED

Police were dispatched in response to a 911 in which the Defendant’s wife stated that the Defendant was intoxicated and had struck her on the side of the face. She was in fear of the Defendant. Upon arrival, she told police that the Defendant struck her on the right side of the face with an open hand. Defendant denied hitting his wife and told the police that his wife actually hit him.

Result: On the day of trial, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan argued a Motion to Dismiss the criminal complaint on the basis that the Defendant’s wife would be asserting her marital privilege not to testify against the Defendant, and that the Commonwealth had no other evidence upon which to try and convict the Defendant. Attorney Gerald J. Noonan’s Motion to Dismiss was allowed and the criminal charge was dismissed against his client, a computer technician with no prior criminal record.

ASSAULT & BATTERY: PRETRIAL PROBATION

Defendant’s father called 911 to report a fight between the Defendant and his 16-year-old younger brother. The father reported that the Defendant charged at his younger brother and they began fighting on the floor. The father pointed out that the Defendant outweighs his younger brother by 100 lbs. The father intervened to protect his younger son from the Defendant and the father had to punch the Defendant in the face to break up the fight. The younger brother told police that the Defendant pushed his finger into his eye socket multiple times. Police observed that the younger brother had redness to his left eye and redness around his mouth. The parents made written statements to police. All parties (father, mother, brother) stated that the Defendant has an anger problem and needs help for his anger issues.

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan persuaded the Commonwealth to place his client on pretrial probation for one-year with the condition that he undergoes counseling to address the concerns of his family members. If the Defendant abides by the conditions, the criminal charge will be dismissed after one-year and the Defendant will not have to admit guilt.

LEAVING THE SCENE: DISMISSED
UNLICENSED OPERATION: DISMISSED
FAILURE TO USE CARE: NOT RESPONSIBLE

Defendant was involved in a motor vehicle accident in which he rear-ended a vehicle pushing that vehicle into the vehicle in front of it. The driver of the front vehicle was injured and taken to the hospital by ambulance. Defendant approached the injured driver but the driver refused to speak to him. Defendant gave his name and information to the driver of the other vehicle involved in the chain collision. Defendant properly reported the accident to his insurance company. Defendant was charged by criminal complaint with Leaving the Scene of an Accident causing Personal Injury, Failure to Use Care in Stopping, and Operating a Vehicle without a License.

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan requested a Clerk-Magistrate’s Hearing on the criminal complaints. Attorney Gerald J. Noonan argued that the Defendant took appropriate steps in making himself known and providing his information to the injured motorist. Attorney Gerald J. Noonan persuaded the clerk-magistrate not to issue the criminal complaints.

LARCENY over $250: DISMISSED
LARCENY over $250: DISMISSED
LARCENY over $250: DISMISSED
LARCENY over $250: DISMISSED
LARCENY over $250: DISMISSED
UTTER FALSE CHECK: DISMISSED
UTTER FALSE CHECK: DISMISSED
UTTER FALSE CHECK: DISMISSED
UTTER FALSE CHECK: DISMISSED
UTTER FALSE CHECK: DISMISSED

Defendant owned and operated his own business manufacturing wood products. Defendant’s business would purchase wood materials from a vendor-company. The company alleged that they engaged in five separate transactions with the Defendant. The company alleged that they provided the Defendant with wood materials in these five separate transactions. The company alleged that they sent invoices to the Defendant with regards to these five separate transactions. All invoices were for an amount greater than $250. With each invoice, the company alleged that they received a business check from the Defendant, which was returned due to insufficient funds. The company claimed that they attempted to contact the Defendant regarding the returned checks but were unsuccessful. The company claimed that they sent a certified demand letter to the Defendant demanding payment for all five business transactions. The company went to the police department with all the documentation (invoices, business checks, bank records, and demand letter).

Result: Defendant was summonsed to court where he was arraigned on 10 felony charges. Defendant then retained Attorney Gerald J. Noonan. At his first court appearance, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan got all 10 felony charges dismissed against his client, a business owner with no criminal record.

LARCENY over $250: DISMISSED

Defendant was an employee at a retail store. Defendant was alleged to have made two fraudulent transactions totaling over $250. Defendant admitted to Loss Prevention and Police that she made the two fraudulent transactions.

Result: At the arraignment, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan was able to get the criminal charge dismissed.

209A RESTRAINING ORDER: VACATED

Defendant’s ex-fiancé obtained a temporary restraining order against him pursuant to Chapter 209A alleging that: Defendant abused her, Defendant stalked her, and Defendant threatened her. Attorney Gerald J. Noonan contested the restraining order and requested a two-party hearing such that Attorney Noonan could cross-examine the Plaintiff and present evidence on the Defendant’s behalf. At the hearing, Attorney Noonan attacked the Plaintiff’s credibility by introducing evidence that she had prior restraining orders issued against her by an ex-boyfriend. Attorney attacked her credibility by presenting evidence that the Plaintiff had criminal complaints lodged against her by an ex-boyfriend for Assault with a Dangerous Weapon (hammer), Domestic Assault & Battery, Breaking & Entering, and Malicious Destruction of Property. Attorney Noonan argued that the Plaintiff had a pattern of volatile behavior in dating relationships and that she was repeating such behavior in the aftermath of her relationship with this Defendant. At the hearing, the Plaintiff did not contest the prior restraining orders or criminal charges. Attorney Noonan established that the Defendant did not abuse the Plaintiff during or after their relationship. Attorney Noonan introduced letters and e-mails sent to the Defendant by the Plaintiff in which she thanks the Defendant for getting her gifts. Attorney Noonan showed that the Defendant bought a Jeep for the Plaintiff and when the Defendant broke off the relationship he demanded the return of the Jeep and she refused. Defendant threatened to call the police if the Plaintiff did not return the Jeep.

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan thoroughly attacked the credibility of the alleged victim and established that the Defendant did not “abuse” the Plaintiff. At the conclusion of the hearing, the judge vacated the restraining order.

POSS. INTENT TO DISTRIBUTE: DISMISSED
POSS. CLASS B: PERCOCET: DISMISSED
POSS. CLASS C: ADDERALL: CWOF (Admin. Probation)

The DEA, Bristol County Drug Task Force, and Mansfield Police conducted a 6 year investigation into the Defendant’s drug activities. In 2009, police had a confidential informant engage in two controlled buys with the Defendant for Percocet and Oxycodone. The investigation re-launched in 2015 with another confidential informant. This informant provided police with information concerning the Defendant’s selling of prescription pills. This confidential informant engaged in two controlled buys with the Defendant for Oxycodone. Police obtained a search warrant for the Defendant’s apartment and motor vehicle. At the Defendant’s apartment, police recovered 48 blue pulls, 2 white pills, and 114 orange pills. $5,000 in cash was found in the Defendant’s vehicle. During questioning, Defendant admitted that he had Adderall pills in his storage locker. Attorney Gerald J. Noonan filed an extensive discovery motion seeking pointed information into the confidential informant’s used by the police in this 6-year investigation. When Attorney Noonan appeared for a hearing on the Discovery Motion, the Commonwealth offered to dismiss the felony Intent to Distribution charge and the Possession of Class B Percocet charge. The Commonwealth offered the Defendant a continuance without a finding on the Possession of Adderall charge, the least serious of all the charges. The Defendant was placed on administrative probation with no terms or conditions for one-year.

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan gets felony Intent to Distribute charge and misdemeanor Possession of Class B Percocet charges dismissed. Defendant receives a continuance without a finding on the least serious charge of Possession of Adderall. Defendant was placed on administrative probation for one-year with no terms or conditions. Client was very pleased with the outcome of his case.

ASSAULT & BATTERY: DISMISSED AT TRIAL

Defendant’s boyfriend called 911 and he reported that the Defendant bit him and that the Defendant had a knife in her hand. The boyfriend stated that they were having an argument over finances when the Defendant bit him and retrieved a knife at which point the victim left the apartment and called 911. Police were dispatched to the residence and they placed the Defendant under arrest for Domestic Assault & Battery.

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan prepared the case for trial. At trial, the alleged victim failed to appear. Attorney Gerald J. Noonan argued that the Commonwealth would not be able to introduce the 911 call into evidence, as the 911 call did not meet the necessary rules of evidence. Without the victim’s testimony and without the 911 call, the Commonwealth was forced to dismiss the case.

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.

OUI-THIRD OFFENSE: REDUCED TO SECOND OFFENSE

Defendant was arrested and charged with Operating under the Influence of Liquor this being his third offense. The Defendant was operating his vehicle when he struck two parked cars. Defendant admitted to consuming alcohol and failed all field sobriety tests. Defendant had been previously convicted of two prior OUI offenses. A third offense OUI is a felony. With this offense, there is a minimum mandatory jail sentence of 150 days or five months.

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan persuaded the District Attorney’s Office to reduce the third offense OUI to a second offense OUI thus saving his client from serving a mandatory jail sentence of five months. The Defendant was placed on probation and ordered to undergo alcohol treatment in lieu of a jail sentence. If convicted, Defendant would have lost his job. If convicted, Defendant’s family would have suffered greatly, as they would have no other means of financial support.

OPEN & GROSS LEWNDESS: IDENTIFICATION SUPPRESSED

An identified civilian witness called 911. She called to report that she was driving home when her vehicle was cut off and blocked in by another vehicle. She claimed that the male operator in the vehicle pulled out his penis and motioned for her to follow him. She claimed that the male operator turned on the interior light, thrust his hips upward, opened his pants, exposed his penis, and proceeded to masturbate. She provided police with the make, model, and license plate of the vehicle. She provided police with a physical description of the suspect as being: a white male, in his late 30s / early 40s, with a long strawberry colored beard, and heavy up top. Police conducted an RMV query of the vehicle, which was registered to the Defendant. The Defendant’s RMV photograph matched the witness’s description in that the Defendant’s picture showed that he had a long strawberry colored beard. The police presented a photo array of potential suspects to the victim. She identified the Defendant’s photograph and stated that she was 100% certain that the Defendant was the suspect. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan challenged the procedure by which the police conducted the photo array. Attorney Noonan pointed out that the Defendant’s photo “stood out” from the other photos. First, there were substantial disparities in the age of the suspects. The victim described the suspect as being in his late 30s / early 40s. The Defendant was 34 years old. The majority of the photos were of males that were in their early to mid-twenties. Second, several of the suspects had skinny builds unlike the Defendant’s build, which was heavier. Third, the most striking point of suggestion was that only two of the eight suspects had long facial hair. Fourth, the photos that were presented to the victim were in black and white, not in color. In addition to the Defendant’s photo standing out, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan challenged the procedure by which the police presented the photos to the victim. Originally, police generated an 8-person photo array. However, when the police presented the photos to the victim, they mistakenly left out two photos, and the photo array only consisted of 6 photos. The victim went through the six photos and stated that the suspect was not in the 6 photos. Police realized that they mistakenly left the two missing photos at the police station. Police generated the same 8 person photo array and conducted a second showing to the victim. Contrary to standard photo array practice, police re-used the same 6 filler photos, which were already shown to the victim. Contrary to standard practice, the police did not shuffle the photos and presented them in the same order as they did the first time. The victim breezed through the first 6 photos because she had already looked at these same six photos in the first presentation. The suspects in the first six photos did not have facial hair. When the victim got to the seventh photo, she identified the Defendant, as his picture showed that he had long facial hair. Contrary to standard photo array practice, police did not show the victim the eighth and final photo. The last photo showed a suspect with a long beard. Other than the Defendant’s photo, the suspect pictured in the last photo had a long beard, and this photo should have been shown to the victim.

Result: At the conclusion of the hearing, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan convinced the judge that the photo array procedure used by police was so impermissibly suggestive as to give rise to a substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification and therefore violated the Defendant’s constitutional rights. As a result, the judge suppressed the out of court identification from evidence and precluded the Commonwealth from presenting the victim’s positive identification of the Defendant at trial.

OUI-LIQUOR (0.124% BAC): NOT GUILTY
NEGLIGENT OPERATION: NOT GUILTY

On January 17, 2013, at approximately 1:30 a.m., a police officer claimed he was traveling on West Main Street when he observed the Defendant’s vehicle traveling in front of him. The officer claimed that the Defendant’s vehicle was speeding and that the Defendant’s vehicle took an abrupt right hand turn into a parking lot. The officer claimed that the Defendant’s vehicle then exited the parking lot at an excessive rate of speed. The officer then claimed that the Defendant’s vehicle was traveling erratically and failed to use a turn signal. Attorney Gerald J. Noonan established that the officer’s observations of the Defendant’s operation were incredible. First, the officer was in no position to observe that the Defendant’s vehicle was speeding and he was in no position to see the Defendant’s vehicle make an abrupt turn into the parking lot. Attorney Noonan established that this officer was not traveling behind the Defendant’s vehicle. Rather, the officer was traveling in the oncoming direction / lane when he happened to observe the Defendant’s vehicle. Second, the officer had no basis upon which to determine that the Defendant’s vehicle was speeding or traveling in excess of the posted speed limit. The officer simply believed that the Defendant’s was speeding when he passed him in the oncoming direction. The officer turned around to follow the Defendant’s vehicle. When the officer turned around, he was not traveling directly behind the Defendant’s vehicle. Rather, the officer was several cars behind the Defendant and was in no position to make any observations of erratic operation. It was established that this officer was not the officer that conducted the stop of the Defendant’s vehicle. A different officer made the stop based on the other officer’s observations. Attorney Noonan established that the stopping officer made no observations that would warrant a stop of the Defendant’s vehicle. Rather, the stopping officer relied on the observations of the first officer. The stopping officer did not even write a police report with regards to the case. Attorney Noonan argued that the stop of the Defendant’s vehicle was pre-textual. Specifically, Attorney Noonan argued that the officer pre-determined that he would stop the Defendant’s vehicle because it was seen exiting a bar at 1:30 a.m. Defendant admitted to consuming “four beers” at the bar but the officer omitted the Defendant’s statements that he consumed the beverages over course of several hours. The officer claimed that the Defendant’s eyes were red, bloodshot and glassy. Attorney Noonan introduced a color photo of the Defendant’s booking photograph, which contradicted the officer’s testimony in that the color booking photo did not show that the Defendant’s eyes were red, bloodshot, or glassy. The officer claimed that the Defendant’s speech was thick and slurred. The officer claimed that the Defendant’s vehicle smelled strongly of alcohol. The officer claimed that the Defendant failed the Nine Step Walk and Turn and the One Legged Stand Tests. Attorney Noonan established that the Defendant was not a very coordinated individual. Defendant had poor posture with a hunched back. Defendant was bow-legged and walked with his feet facing outward. Defendant had difficulty walking in a straight line and balancing not because he was intoxicated but because he was not a very coordinated person. Prior to trial, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan suppressed from evidence the results of the Defendant’s breathalyzer test, which was 0.124%.

Result: After a jury trial, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan won Not Guilty Verdicts on all charges, including OUI-Liquor and Negligent Operation.

POSS. w/ INTENT TO DISTRIBUTE: EVIDENCE SUPPRESSED / DISMISSED
CONSPIRACY TO VIOLATE DRUG LAWS: EVIDENCE SUPPRESSED / DISMISSED

Three 17-year-old juveniles were arrested on a theory of joint venture to distribute marijuana. A police officer conducting patrol observed three males standing in the middle of the street and the police officer detected a “strong, distinctive odor of marijuana.” The officer stopped and questioned the three juveniles. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan’s client (Juvenile #1) had his backpack searched, which contained: a gallon zip lock bag containing marijuana, a marijuana blunt inside another zip lock bag, a digital scale with marijuana residue, and cash. The officer searched the backpack of another Juvenile #2, which contained: liquor bottles, a zip lock bag containing marijuana, a digital scale with marijuana residue, and a glass pipe with marijuana inside. The officer searched the person of Juvenile #3 and recovered four plastic baggies of marijuana. Attorney Noonan filed a Motion to Suppress the physical evidence seized from his client’s backpack. Upon examining the arresting officer, Attorney Noonan established that: the officer seized the juveniles immediately upon approaching them; the officer exceeded the scope of the threshold inquiry because possession of less than one-ounce of marijuana is not a criminal offense, and social sharing of marijuana is not a criminal offense, and most importantly, that the search of Juvenile #1’s backpack was not justified as a lawful pat and frisk for weapons. The officer testified that he searched Juvenile #1’s backpack for weapons because Juvenile #1 had a knife on him. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan established that a reasonable person in the officer’s position would not fear for his safety – as to justify a pat-frisk of the backpack for weapons.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan’s Motion to Suppress was allowed. The judge found that the search of the Juvenile’s backpack was unlawful. As a result, the judge suppressed all evidence seized from the Juvenile’s backpack. With all the drugs suppressed from evidence, the Commonwealth was forced to dismiss all charges.

ASSAULT & BATTERY on PREGNANT WOMAN: PRETRIAL PROBATION

Juvenile was a high school student. In class, his teacher disciplined him repeatedly causing the Juvenile to become upset. After class, the Juvenile grabbed the teacher’s hand for a hand shake. During the handshake, the Juvenile twisted her arm in an unnatural way causing the teacher “extreme pain” in her wrist and arm. The handshake pulled the teacher’s body downward. The teacher called out in pain and the Juvenile ran away. The Juvenile admitted to the Dean of Students what the teacher had reported. The teacher was visibly five and one-half months pregnant. The Juvenile was aware that the teacher was pregnant. The Dean of Students suspended the Juvenile for 10 days. The Juvenile had an extensive disciplinary record, including a violation physical altercation with school staff. At the time of this incident, the Juvenile had an open criminal case for being a minor in possession of alcohol.

Result: On the first court date, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan convinced the prosecutor to place the Juvenile on pretrial probation for six-months with the condition that the Juvenile enroll in and complete the Bridging the Gap Youth Program. Upon the successful completion of probation, the aggravated felony charge of Assault & Battery on a Pregnant Woman, and the misdemeanor charge of Minor in Possession of Alcohol will be dismissed.

NEGLIGENT OPERATION: DISMISSED at CLERK’S HEARING

Randolph Police were dispatched to a motor vehicle accident involving a vehicle striking a utility pole. Upon arrival, Defendant stated that something ran into the roadway and he swerved to avoid hitting the object and he could not recall what happened after that. Police observed that there was extensive damage to the utility police – specifically, the utility pole had been completely snapped in half, electrical wires were down, and traffic had to be shut down. Police also observed that there was heavy front-end damage to the Defendant’s vehicle. Based on the extent of the damage to the utility pole and the Defendant’s vehicle, police charged him with Negligent Operation. Defendant is 21 years-old. He has no criminal record. He is currently in college studying criminal justice with aspirations of becoming a police officer. For over three years, Defendant has worked security at the Harvard Vanguard Hospital.

Result: At the clerk magistrate’s hearing, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan convinces the clerk-magistrate to dismiss the criminal complaint due to insufficient probable cause.

Docket No.: 1515 CR 4971

MALICIOUS DESTRUCTION: DISMISSED upon MOTION
MALICIOUS DESTRUCTION: DISMISSED upon MOTION
MALICIOUS DESTRUCTION: DISMISSED upon MOTION
MALICIOUS DESTRUCTION: DISMISSED upon MOTION

Defendant was charged with four felony counts of Malicious Destruction of Property. The allegations were that the Defendant was terminated from the Company he was employed at for over 30 years. The police report alleges that the Defendant vandalized the Company’s outdoor air chiller unit on at least four different occasions. The company told police that the equipment was vital to the day to day operation of the business. The company alleged that they had to shut down production due to the vandalism. The company claimed that the value of the damage caused by the Defendant was approximately $102,000.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan’s Motion to Dismiss was allowed. Attorney Noonan argued that the police report failed to present sufficient probable cause to support each element of the felony offenses.

Docket No.: 1515 CR 4306

OPERATING w/ SUSPENDED REGISTRATION: DISMISSED at CLERK’S HEARING
UNINSURED MOTOR VEHICLE: DISMISSED at CLERK’S HEARING
UNREGISTERED MOTOR VEHICLE: DISMISSED at CLERK’S HEARING

While monitoring traffic, Police ran the registration on the Defendant’s vehicle and found that the Defendant’s insurance was revoked. Police pulled the Defendant over and he admitted that his vehicle was not registered and not insured. Defendant had a bad driving record. In 2004, his driver’s license was revoked for one-year for operating to endanger. In 2005, his license was suspended. In 2006, his license was revoked for 60 days due to surchargable events. In 2007, his license was revoked for 60 days.

Result: On the first court appearance, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan convinced the prosecutor to dismiss all charges against his client.

LARCENY FROM PERSON: DISMISSED
CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT LARCENY: DISMISSED

Police received a 911 call from an Ice Cream Shop reporting that a male party attempted to steal the tip jar on the counter in front of the service window. The clerk caught the Defendant in the act of stealing the tip jar and he dropped the tip jar and ran out of the store. The caller provided a very specific description of the male including his clothing. A second 911 call came in from the owner of the Ice Cream Shop. She was pursuing the male suspect in her vehicle and reported that he was hiding in the woods. Police pursued the male party in the woods and located him with a K-9. The witnesses identified the male party in the woods as the person who attempted to steal the tip jar. At the police station, Defendant admitted to trying to the steal the tip jar. Defendant stated that he conspired with another person to commit a larceny at the Ice Cream Shop. The other party was the get-a-way driver who fled the scene when the Defendant ran out of the store.

Result: At his first court appearance, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan was able to get the Larceny from Person and Conspiracy charges dismissed.

UNLAWFUL POSS. OF AMMUNITION: DISMISSED
NEGLIGENT OPERATION: DISMISSED

At 12:30 a.m., police responded to the scene of a motor vehicle accident. Defendant was driving his pick-up truck and struck a utility pole. Upon arrival, police called the ambulance and the Defendant was transported to the emergency room. Upon investigation, it was determined that the Defendant operated his vehicle negligently so as to endanger the safety of others. Police observed heavy front-end damage to the pick-up indicating that the Defendant was operating at a high rate of speed. Contents in the bed of the pick-up had been scattered all over the road. Police observed extensive damage to the utility, which had been broken in half also indicating that the Defendant struck the pole at a high rate of speed. Police observed very little skid marks prior to the crash. Police searched the Defendant’s pick-up truck and found a box containing 50 cartridges of .357 caliber ammunition. Police also found 13 cartridges of .38 caliber ammunition. Defendant did not have a Firearms Identification Card (FID) or any license to possess the ammunition. Defendant was a 21 year-old male with no criminal record. He had an Associate’s Degree and planned on enrolling as a student at Bridgewater State University. He was employed as full-time construction worker. He was also employed by the city as a snow-plower. The issuance of the criminal complaint would have jeopardized Defendant’s employment for the city as a snow-plower and would have affected his ability to enroll in college.

Result: At a clerk’s hearing, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan persuaded the police department and the clerk-magistrate to dismiss the criminal complaint. As a result, no criminal charges will appear on the Defendant’s record.

UTTERING FALSE PRESCRIPTION: EXPUNGED

Defendant is a 30-year-old woman with no criminal record. She is college educated. She has degrees in Graphic Design and Programming. She has been gainfully employed with the same company for 12 years, progressing from payroll, to accounts manager, to human resources manager. She earned a position with an international company as a data systems analyst. Defendant was charged with a felony offense of Uttering a False Prescription. The felony was docketed on her permanent record. She has been applying for positions with several international corporations, which perform extensive criminal background checks. She has not applied for any positions due to the felony charge on her record. In Massachusetts, expungement is extremely rare and only happens in very limited circumstances. In most, if not all cases, the Defendant’s remedy is to seal the record, not expunge the record.

Result: In a very rare case, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan was able to obtain a court order permanently expunging the Defendant’s record. Expungement involves the removal and destruction of records “so that no trace of information remains.”

ASSAULT & BATTERY: NOLLE PROSS
DISORDERLY CONDUCT: NOLLE PROSS
RESISTING ARREST: CWOF
STALKING: Amended to THREATS TO COMMIT A CRIME: CWOF

The alleged victim dated the Defendant. They dated for 9 months. She states that the Defendant was “very controlling” over the course of the relationship. He controlled what clothing she wore and he controlled what people she could talk to. They broke up. Two days after the break-up, Defendant called the alleged victim at 1:00 a.m. He called her 4 times in a row screaming at her. In the last call, Defendant threatened to burn her house down. Approximately 15 minutes after the phone call, Defendant showed up to the alleged victim’s house. He barged into the house very intoxicated. She claims that the Defendant was screaming and yelling at her. She claims that she felt that the Defendant was going to hit her. She alleges that she was in fear of her life. The alleged victim’s parents got the Defendant to leave. The alleged victim called the Defendant’s mother to come pick him up. The alleged victim looked out her window and saw the Defendant fighting and wrestling with his father (defendant’s father) in the street. She called 911. Police arrived and observed the Defendant fighting his father in the street. The officer intervened. The officer ordered the Defendant to stop fighting his father. The officer attempted to gain control of the Defendant’s right arm but he repeatedly pulled his arm away. The officer warned the Defendant that he was spray him with mace if he continued to resist. The Defendant continued resisting and the officer sprayed him in the face and placed him under arrest. The police officer observed a 5 gallon container of gasoline in the street where the Defendant and his father were fighting. The alleged victim’s mother came outside. She picked up the gas container and observed that it was less than half-way full of gasoline. Police interviewed the Defendant’s father. The father stated that he received a call from the alleged victim stating that the Defendant barged into her house intoxicated and he needed to be removed. The father, after much persistence, was able to get the Defendant in his car to drive him home. While driving the car home, the Defendant stated that he was “going to burn that shit down.” The Defendant also threatened to kill himself. The Defendant jumped out of the moving car and ran home where he went into the garage and retrieved the 5 gallon container of gasoline. His father tackled him in an attempt to prevent the Defendant from going to the alleged victim’s house to carry out his threat. The Defendant was able to wrestle away from his father and run over to the alleged victim’s house; 1-2 streets away. The father got into his car and drove to the alleged victim’s house where he confronted the defendant in the street. The father tackled the Defendant to the ground and attempted to hold him down until police arrived.

Immediately, the District Attorney’s Office filed a Motion with the Court requesting that the Defendant be held in custody for 120 days or until his trial because he was “dangerous” and posed a danger to the alleged victim and the public if he were released. After a Dangerousness Hearing in which Attorney Patrick J. Noonan cross-examined the alleged victim and her mother, Attorney Noonan was successful in obtaining the release of his client with certain conditions.

The Commonwealth was intent on finding the Defendant Guilty of all the offenses and having him serve jail time. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan argued a Motion to Dismiss the Stalking charge arguing that the incidents of Stalking did not occur “over a period of time,” as required by statute. Attorney Noonan argued that the alleged acts of Stalking occurred within the time-span of 45 minutes, which is inconsistent with the language of the statute, which requires three instances of stalking “over a period of time.” Attorney Noonan’s Motion to Dismiss was denied but he preserved the issue for appeal.

Attorney Patrick J. Noonan prepared for trial. He obtained an arsenal of information to attack the alleged victim’s credibility at trial. Attorney Noonan obtained text messages showing that the Defendant broke up with the alleged victim – and not the other way around. Attorney Noonan obtained text messages showing that the alleged victim initiated contact with the Defendant on the night of the incident – and not the other way around. Attorney Noonan established that the alleged victim did not call the police or tell her parents when the Defendant threatened to burn her house down in the phone call. Rather, the alleged victim went back to sleep. Shortly, thereafter, the alleged victim saw the Defendant walking up the front steps to her home. Again, she did not call the police but decided to let him into the house showing that she did not take his threat to burn the house down seriously. When the Defendant was inside the house, Attorney Noonan obtained previously testimony from the mother that the Defendant did not touch anyone when he was inside the house. Attorney Noonan elicited testimony from the mother that there was no physical confrontation whatsoever in the home and it took less than one minute to get the Defendant to leave. After the Defendant left, the alleged victim nor her parents called 911 – but rather they all went back to sleep showing that they did not take his threats seriously. When the alleged victim looked out the window and saw the Defendant fighting with his father in the street, she told police at the scene that she obtained a gas can close by. Attorney Noonan obtained the alleged victim’s 911 call in which the alleged victim never tells the 911 dispatcher that the Defendant threatened to burn her house down or that she observed a gas can in the street. The 911 call shows that the alleged victim was not fearful, scared, crying, breathing heavy, etc. Rather, the 911 tape shows that the alleged victim was calm and unemotional. She even laughed at one point in the call, showing that she did not take the Defendant’s threat seriously. After the Defendant was arrested, the police officer interviewed the alleged victim and her parents. Attorney Noonan, in a prior hearing, established that the alleged victim and her parents declined getting a restraining order because they did not feel it was necessary. A week after the incident, the alleged victim obtained a restraining order. Attorney Noonan found a restraining order that the alleged victim filed against a previous ex-boyfriend several years before the Defendant’s case. The alleged victim applied and obtained the prior restraining order with the assistance of her mother. Attorney Noonan contended that the alleged victim was familiar with the process of obtaining a restraining and had she been in imminent fear of the Defendant she would have obtained one immediately. Attorney Noonan also argued that the alleged victim’s mother had taken precautions to protect her daughter in the past by assisting her daughter in getting a restraining order. Had the alleged victim’s mother felt that the Defendant posed a danger to her daughter, she would have persuaded her daughter to get a restraining order – as she did in the past. Attorney Noonan felt that the alleged victim’s mother did not persuade her daughter in getting a restraining order against the Defendant because she felt that the Defendant did not pose a danger to her daughter. After the alleged victim obtained a restraining order against the Defendant, Attorney Noonan obtained evidence of the alleged victim attempting to contact the Defendant. Attorney Noonan obtained a text message that the alleged victim sent to the Defendant’s mother. Attorney Noonan obtained another text message that the alleged victim sent to the Defendant’s friend. Attorney Noonan obtained information that the alleged victim sent a request to the Defendant’s Instagram account in an effort to contact him. When all her attempts to contact the Defendant failed, the alleged victim went into court and removed the restraining order. Attorney Noonan obtained an audio recording and transcript of the hearing. In the hearing, the alleged victim states that the real reason why she sought the restraining order against the Defendant was to give the Defendant some time to get himself together – rather than being in fear of him. When asked about the alleged incident, the alleged victim states that she did not believe that the Defendant would carry out such a threat because she knows him and she knows he is not the type of person to do such a thing. She further states that she would like to have contact with him because they were practically engaged and their relationship was not the type of thing to just throw away.

Attorney Noonan provided the Commonwealth with his discovery and the evidence he intended to introduce at trial. On the eve of trial, the Commonwealth made a proposition, which the Defendant refused. On the day of trial, the Commonwealth made another proposition. The Commonwealth entered a Nolle Prosequi on the Assault & Battery and Disorderly Conduct. The Commonwealth amended the felony Stalking to charge to a misdemeanor offense of Threats to Commit a Crime. The Commonwealth recommended Guilty findings on Resisting Arrest and Threats to Commit a Crime. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan convinced the Judge to continue the two charges without a finding and upon the Defendant’s successful completion of probation the two charges will be dismissed.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan persuades the Commonwealth to Nolle Pross the Assault & Battery charge and the Disorderly Conduct. Attorney Noonan persuades the Commonwealth to amend the felony Stalking charge to a misdemeanor offense of Threats to Commit a Crime. Attorney Noonan assured that the Stalking charge would not appear on his client’s record. Even though the Commonwealth recommended Guilty findings on the remaining charges of Resisting Arrest and Threats to Commit a Crime, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan convinced the judge to continue them without a finding. The client will not have any felonies on his record. If he complies with probation, he will get dismissals on the two misdemeanor offenses.

KEEPING NOISY & DISORDERLY HOME: DISMISSED ON 05/16/16

Client, a 23-year-old senior college student, was charged with Keeping a Noisy and Disorderly Home in connection with an off-campus party in which more than 200 students attended. Police received noise complaints due to the loud noise from the party – as there was a DJ blasting music in the backyard. When police arrived, they observed a female dancing on the roof of the garage. Many of the party-goers were yelling for her to “jump.” Seconds later, a male student pushed the female off the roof and into the crowd. Police arrested the man who pushed the female off the roof. The incident of the male pushing the female student off the roof was captured on film. The case involving the male student pushing the female off the roof received a lot of publicity.
Our client was one of three college students that were named on the lease. My client had no criminal record. He was a standout wrestler in high school and college. He is expected to graduate with a degree in Physical Education and Coaching. Our client had never been arrested and never been involved with any problems in school. After the incident, he made plans to move out of the house to avoid any potential issues arising in the future.

Result: At a clerk’s hearing, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan persuaded the police prosecutor and the clerk-magistrate to hold the case open until his client graduates in the spring. Client does not have any criminal and will continue to have no criminal record, so long as he stays out of trouble until the spring. Client intends to become a wrestling coach.

Video shows man shoving woman off roof at Bridgewater party. Pix11.com, by Jeremy Tanner, September 1, 2015. Excerpt: BRIDGEWATER, Mass. – Cellphones came out when a woman climbed onto a roof at a party Sunday night in Bridgeport, Massachusetts — and now prosecutors are using that footage after a man allegedly pushed the woman off as cameras recorded.

Read More About This Case in the News

CARRYING FIREARM while INTOX.: DISMISSED at CLERK’S HEARING

Police were dispatched to the Mandarin Restaurant for a domestic disturbance. Upon arrival, police approached the Defendant in the parking lot with his girlfriend. Police observed that the Defendant and his girlfriend were intoxicated. Police learned that Defendant’s girlfriend had an altercation with Defendant’s ex-girlfriend inside the restaurant and they were asked to leave. Officers allowed the Defendant to retrieve his personal belongings from his vehicle because a friend was on his way to pick the Defendant and his girlfriend. Police observed a leather jacket in his vehicle with a “Devil’s Disciples” patch on the back along a 1% patch and German Swastikas. Police observed a holster affixed to his belt on the small of his back with a clip. The firearm was identified as a Smith & Wesson SW40VE 40. caliber semi-automatic pistol with a magazine containing 13 jacketed hollow point rounds with one round loaded in the chamber. Police located another firearm on the Defendant’s right hip identified as a Smith & Wesson SW9VE 9 mm. semi-automatic pistol with a magazine containing 9 jacketed hollow point rounds and one round loaded in the chamber. Defendant also had five knifes on his person. Defendant had a valid license to carry firearms with no restrictions. Police placed the Defendant in protective custody and subsequently charged him with Carrying a Firearm while Intoxicated. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan, on the first court appearance, argued a Motion to Dismiss on the basis that the Defendant was denied his statutory right to a clerk-magistrate’s hearing. The Commonwealth argued that the Defendant was not entitled to a clerk’s hearing because he posed an imminent threat to the public based upon the nature of the charge, the fact that the firearms were fully loaded with rounds in the chamber, and because he was affiliated with a motorcycle gang. Attorney Noonan convinced the judge that the Defendant did not pose an imminent threat because: he had a constitutional right to carry his firearms, the offense was a non-violent misdemeanor, defendant was cooperative and compliant, defendant did not engage in any violent or threatening behavior, and he was not involved in the domestic disturbance. Attorney Noonan argued that the police unfairly profiled him upon learning that he was associated with a biker gang. Upon learning that he was affiliated with a biker gang, police placed him in protective custody (alleging that he was intoxicated) when they initially allowed him to leave the scene upon being picked up by his friend. Had the Defendant not been affiliated with a biker gang, police would have allowed him to leave the scene with his firearms.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan’s Motion to Dismiss was allowed. Subsequently, Police requested a clerk-magistrate’s hearing. At the hearing, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan persuaded the clerk-magistrate not to issue the criminal complaint but to keep the matter on file for three-months after which time the criminal complaint will be dismissed, so long as the Defendant does not commit any new crimes.

FIREARM SUSPENSION: LICENSE TO CARRY REINSTATED

Client had a valid license to carry firearms (LTC). The chief of police suspended his LTC pursuant to G.L. c. 140, § 131 because he was arrested and charged with a felony sex offense. As a result of his arrest, client was required to surrender all his firearms to the police department. After successfully resolving his criminal case, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan petitioned the chief of police to reinstate his client’s LTC and return his firearms.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan convinces chief of police to reinstate his client’s LTC and his firearms were returned.

OUI-LIQUOR (subsequent offense): NOT GUILTY

A Bourne Police Officer conducting radar patrol on the highway detected the Defendant’s vehicle traveling at 86 mph and stopped his vehicle. The officer approached the Defendant on the driver’s side. The officer noticed that Defendant stared straight-forward when answering the officer’s questions. The Defendant admitted to consuming alcohol. When the officer asked whether the amount of alcohol he consumed would affect his ability to operate his vehicle the Defendant answered “sure.” When speaking to the Defendant outside the vehicle, the officer had to ask the Defendant repeatedly to remove his hands from his pockets. The officer noted that the Defendant was belligerent, argumentative and defiant when asked questions. The Defendant would sigh and curse. The Defendant passed the Alphabet Test. With regards to the Counting Test, the Defendant said, “You fucking do it.”

Result: After a bench trial in which Attorney Gerald J. Noonan vigorously cross-examined the officer, the judge found the Defendant Not Guilty. The Defendant was charged with second offense OUI and had a third OUI pending at the time of trial. Attorney Noonan saved his client from facing a third offense OUI.

OUI-LIQUOR (subsequent offense): NOT GUILTY

A Bourne Police Officer conducting radar patrol on the highway detected the Defendant’s vehicle traveling at 86 mph and stopped his vehicle. The officer approached the Defendant on the driver’s side. The officer noticed that Defendant stared straight-forward when answering the officer’s questions. The Defendant admitted to consuming alcohol. When the officer asked whether the amount of alcohol he consumed would affect his ability to operate his vehicle the Defendant answered “sure.” When speaking to the Defendant outside the vehicle, the officer had to ask the Defendant repeatedly to remove his hands from his pockets. The officer noted that the Defendant was belligerent, argumentative and defiant when asked questions. The Defendant would sigh and curse. The Defendant passed the Alphabet Test. With regards to the Counting Test, the Defendant said, “You fucking do it.”

Result: After a bench trial in which Attorney Gerald J. Noonan vigorously cross-examined the officer, the judge found the Defendant Not Guilty. The Defendant was charged with second offense OUI and had a third OUI pending at the time of trial. Attorney Noonan saved his client from facing a third offense OUI.

MALICIOUS DESTRUCTION: DISMISSED
RESISTING ARREST: DISMISSED

A homeowner called police to report that a male had just ripped off his mailbox. Upon arrival, police located the male matching the description. Upon spotting him, the male fled into the woods and police chased him. During the chase, police tackled him to the ground and the male flailed his arms striking the officer in the head and shoulder. The male broke away and continued to flee into the woods. The officer attempted to tackle him several times but the male pushed him away. Finally, the officer tackled the male to the ground and delivered two fist strikes to his head. Afterwards, police learned that the male destroyed nine mailboxes. The male, a juvenile, was charged with Malicious Destruction of Property (felony) and Resisting Arrest. The juvenile had no prior criminal record. He was a standout athlete on the football team at his high school. The juvenile met with a Marine Corp. recruiter and signed a letter of intention to enlist. If the juvenile were convicted or given of CWOF for the felony offenses, he would be disqualified from military service. Moreover, if the juvenile were placed on Pretrial Probation, he would be disqualified from military. The only disposition that would not disqualify from military serve was an outright dismissal of the charges. After much work, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan and Attorney Patrick J. Noonan persuaded the Commonwealth to dismiss all charges outright. Now, the client can pursue his dream of serving in the military.

Result: Charges dismissed outright and juvenile can now pursue his dream of enlisting in military.

MALICIOUS DESTRUCTION: DISMISSED
RESISTING ARREST: DISMISSED

A homeowner called police to report that a male had just ripped off his mailbox. Upon arrival, police located the male matching the description. Upon spotting him, the male fled into the woods and police chased him. During the chase, police tackled him to the ground and the male flailed his arms striking the officer in the head and shoulder. The male broke away and continued to flee into the woods. The officer attempted to tackle him several times but the male pushed him away. Finally, the officer tackled the male to the ground and delivered two fist strikes to his head. Afterwards, police learned that the male destroyed nine mailboxes. The male, a juvenile, was charged with Malicious Destruction of Property (felony) and Resisting Arrest. The juvenile had no prior criminal record. He was a standout athlete on the football team at his high school. The juvenile met with a Marine Corp. recruiter and signed a letter of intention to enlist. If the juvenile were convicted or given of CWOF for the felony offenses, he would be disqualified from military service. Moreover, if the juvenile were placed on Pretrial Probation, he would be disqualified from military. The only disposition that would not disqualify from military serve was an outright dismissal of the charges. After much work, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan and Attorney Patrick J. Noonan persuaded the Commonwealth to dismiss all charges outright. Now, the client can pursue his dream of serving in the military.

Result: Charges dismissed outright and juvenile can now pursue his dream of enlisting in military.

NEGLIGENT OPERATION: DISMISSED

Police were dispatched to a motor vehicle crash on Route 24 south in which the Defendant rear-ended a vehicle on Route 24 south. The defendant admitted that he was distracted by his cell phone. Three witnesses told police that the Defendant had been traveling over 100 mpg when he struck the other vehicle. The alleged victim sustained neck and back injuries and went to the emergency room via ambulance. After extensive negotiations with the insurance company, the District Attorney’s Office, and the alleged victim, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan was able to dismiss the criminal charge against his client.

Result: Negligent Operation charge dismissed outright after extensive negotiations.

ASSAULT & BATTERY: DISMISSED
ASSAULT & BATTERY: DISMISSED

Sudbury Police were dispatched to a residence for a domestic assault. Upon arrival, the alleged victim (defendant’s husband) reported that the defendant punched him in the jaw. Police observed a red mark to the victim’s jaw. Photos were taken of the victim’s injuries. The victim claimed that the defendant assaulted him the before by kicking him. Defendant admitted to pushing her husband forming the basis for the second count of Assault and Battery.

Result: On the first court date, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan dismissed charges outright against 53 year-old caregiver of disabled daughter with no criminal record.

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.

OUI-LIQUOR (second offense): NOT GUILTY

A civilian witness testified that she was driving on Route 3 South when she was almost struck by a large SUV driving erratically. She followed the SUV and observed that it was “all over the road” in that it almost struck the guardrail in the breakdown lane. A State Trooper observed the SUV driving erratically at a high speed and almost hit the guardrail. There was a passenger passed out in the front seat. The Trooper detected a strong odor of alcohol. The Defendant failed all three field sobriety tests. At the police station, Defendant was verbally assaultive and uncooperative.

Result: After a jury trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan got a Not Guilty, and client avoided a convicted for second offense OUI, which carries a possible 60 day jail sentence and three-year loss of license.

LARCENY: DISMISSED PRIOR TO ARRAIGNMENT

Taunton Federal Credit Union filed an application for criminal complaint against the Defendant for Larceny under $250. Prior to his arraignment, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan contacted the Keeper of Records at the Bank and confirmed that the Bank was not seeking any restitution nor did they have any objections to the case being dismissed.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan filed a Motion to Dismiss Prior to Arraignment, which was allowed, and the criminal charge will not appear on the client’s record.

CARRYING FIREARM while INTOX.: DISMISSED

Police were dispatched to a restaurant for a disturbance. Upon arrival, police encountered the Defendant in the parking lot. Police observed that the Defendant was intoxicated and they placed him in protective custody. Defendant had a loaded and chambered .40 caliber semi-automatic pistol in his back waistband. Defendant also had another loaded and chambered 9 mm. pistol in a holster affixed to his belt. Defendant also had five knives on his person. In his Motion to Dismiss, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan argued that the complaint should be dismissed because the Defendant was denied his opportunity for a clerk-magistrate’s hearing under G.L. c. 218, §35A. The Commonwealth argued that the Defendant was not entitled to a clerk’s hearing because he posed an imminent threat to the public based upon the nature of the charge, the level of his intoxication, the fact that the firearms were fully loaded and chambered, and because he was affiliated with a notorious motorcycle gang.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan’s Motion to Dismiss was allowed without prejudice and the Commonwealth must request a Clerk-Magistrate’s Hearing in order to pursue the charge.

ASSAULT and BATTERY: DISMISSED

Police received a 911 call from an identified caller stating that her friend (alleged victim) sounded in distress and she (caller) could hear the defendant in the background heckling her. Upon arrival, the alleged victim was crying. She stated that the defendant pushed in the window in order to get into the apartment. Police observed the glass window on the floor with the blinds ripped off. Police also observed that the front wooden door was broken. She alleged that the defendant pushed her to the floor and stuck his foot in her face yelling at her, “You’re a fucking bitch.” Police observed blood on the defendant’s hand. Defendant has a total of seven restraining orders against him, two of which are permanent. The alleged victim in this case sought and obtained a restraining order. Attorney Gerald J. Noonan filed a Motion to Dismiss arguing that the alleged victim had a fifth amendment privilege against self-incrimination should she testify against him at trial. Specifically, there was evidence (text messages) showing that the alleged victim broke the front wooden door. There was also evidence that the alleged victim punched the defendant in the face earlier. Police also observed that the alleged victim was intoxicated. Absent the alleged victim’s testimony, the Commonwealth did not have enough evidence to proceed to trial and the case was dismissed.

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan gets domestic violence charge dismissed at trial.

ASSAULT & BATTERY: DISMISSED at CLERK’S HEARING

Brockton Police were dispatched to a residence for a call of domestic violence in which the caller stated that he was hit by his girlfriend. Upon arrival, the alleged victim told police that his girlfriend pushed him and scratched him, leaving marks on his right shoulder. Defendant is 32 years-old and a mother of two with no criminal record. She has worked as a Home Health Aide for over four years. She graduated from Community College and, prior to this incident, applied to several nursing schools to become a Registered Nurse.

Result: No complaint issued, and client may report No Record on school applications.

THREATS TO COMMIT CRIME: DISMISSED

Bridgewater Police were dispatched to a neighborhood disturbance. Upon arrival, police spoke to the alleged victim who stated that the Defendant walked into her backyard and made sexual gestures directed toward her. She told him to leave and he returned five-minutes later and threatened to kill her. Police observed that the alleged victim was crying and very alarmed. Police spoke with the Defendant who smelled of alcohol. At a clerk magistrate’s hearing, the alleged victim testified and Attorney Gerald J. Noonan called witnesses on behalf of the Defendant.

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan convinced the Magistrate not to issue the complaint but to hold the matter open for a period of six-months with certain conditions. If no issues arise, the complaint will be dismissed.

ASSAULT and BATTERY: DISMISSED

On May 8, 2015, the alleged victim (nephew of defendant) went to the Easton Police Station crying and reported that the Defendant pushed him, grabbed him from behind, wrestled with him and threatened to kill him. The alleged victim fled the house in his vehicle and went directly to the police station to report the incident.

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan filed a Motion to Dismiss arguing that the alleged victim had a fifth amendment privilege against self-incrimination stemming from criminal acts he engaged in himself during the dispute and prior to the dispute. The judge dismissed the case.

OUI-LIQUOR (second offense) NOT GUILTY

An off-duty sheriff testified that he was returning home from work when he observed the Defendant’s vehicle abruptly cut him off, travel at a high rate of speed, cross over the center line four times, travel in the opposite lane, and almost strike the shoulder of the road. The sheriff observed the Defendant slam on his brakes at a stop sign and skid to a stop with his vehicle parallel to oncoming traffic. The sheriff conducted a motor vehicle stop and radioed police. Police observed a half-empty 12 pack of beer in his car. Police observed that his speech was very slurred, his eyes were glassy and bloodshot, and that he was unsteady on his feet. Defendant failed the nine-step walk and turn and the one-legged stand tests. A portable breath test gave a result of 0.19%. During booking, Defendant stated that he had stopped drinking for four years and all it takes is “a few too many.”

Result: After a jury trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan got a Not Guilty, and client avoided a convicted for second offense OUI, which carries a possible 60 day jail sentence and three-year loss of license.

OPERATING w/ SUSPENDED LICENSE: DISMISS PRIOR TO ARRAIGNMENT
FAILURE TO STOP / YIELD: NOT RESPONSIBLE

Client’s license was suspended for failure to pay speeding tickets. He was then pulled over by Police for a motor vehicle infraction and was arrested for Operating with a Suspended License and cited for Failure to Stop / Yield.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan dismissed the charge prior to arraignment and no entry was made on the client’s clean criminal record.

POSS. w/ INTENT TO DISTRIBUTE: REDUCED TO MISDEMEANOR / DISMISSED

Police stopped a vehicle for speeding. There were three males in the vehicle. Officers observed the male in the backseat (defendant) reaching down at his feet. In the vehicle, police found one package of marijuana, six individual packets of marijuana, twelve empty zip-lock baggies, an empty vile, and two condoms. Defendant was in the final stages of enlisting in the United States Air Force. Client would be disqualified from enlisting in the Air Force if the felony charge was not reduced to a misdemeanor and then dismissed.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan convinced the Commonwealth to reduce the felony drug charge to a simple misdemeanor and to dismiss the simple misdemeanor outright, which allowed his client to enlist in the Air Force.

RECKLESS OPERATION: DISMISSED
FAILURE TO STOP: NOT RESPONSIBLE
FAILURE TO STOP: NOT RESPONSIBLE
UNREGISTERED VEHICLE: NOT RESPONSIBLE

Brockton Police received reports of gun shots. Police observed a gray SUV traveling at a high rate of speed in the area where the gun shots were reported. The operator, already traveling at a high rate of speed, increased his speed and police attempted to initiate a stop of the vehicle. The operator continued traveling at a high rate of speed and blew through a stop sign at an intersection. The operator refused to stop for police and took a series of turns on several side streets while still traveling at a high rate of speed. The operator finally pulled into a driveway and rushed out of the vehicle. Officers ordered the operator to the ground at gunpoint and arrested him.

Result: After extensive negotiations with the Commonwealth, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan obtained an outright dismissal of the criminal charge and Not Responsible findings on the three civil infractions. “Brockton man arrested after car chase.”

ASSAULT & BATTERY w/ DANGEROUS WEAPON: NOT GUILTY

Defendant was charged with Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon stemming from allegations that he grabbed his girlfriend’s phone and struck her repeatedly in the head with it. The alleged victim claimed that the Defendant slapped her, pushed her to the ground, and threatened to kill her. After the assault, the alleged victim immediately went to the police station to report it and she obtained an emergency restraining order.

Result: After a jury trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan got a Not Guilty verdict on the violent felony offense of Assault & Battery with a Dangerous Weapon.

DISTRIBUTION OF CLASS B: AMENDED TO LESSER CHARGE
DISTRIBUTION IN SCHOOL ZONE: GUILTY (Min. Mandatory Sentence)
DISTRIBUTION SUBSEQUENT OFFENSE: DISMISSED

On December 18, 2012, Defendant sold crack cocaine to an undercover detective within 300 feet of a school zone. With regards to the Distribution indictment (Chapter 94C, §32A(a)), there was a minimum mandatory jail sentence of two and a half years in the house of correction. Attorney Noonan negotiated with the Commonwealth to amend the charge to §32A(c), which does not carry a minimum mandatory sentence. In 2007, Defendant was convicted of possession with intent making the Defendant a subsequent offender. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan was able to convince the Commonwealth to dismiss the Subsequent Offense indictment, which carries a minimum mandatory sentence of 3 ½ years in State Prison. With the Distribution and Subsequent Offender indictments, Defendant was facing 3 ½ to 5 ½ years in prison.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan saves his client from serving a prison sentence of 3 ½ to 5 ½ years.

LARCENY BY SINGLE SCHEME: PRETRIAL PROBATION

The co-defendant obtained checks from a closed checking account of a victim. The co-defendant had the checks from the closed account deposited into the defendant’s checking account. One check that was deposited into the defendant’s checking account was in the amount of $3,800. The defendant admitted to the fraud investigator to being involved in the scheme. The bank submitted surveillance footage of the transactions to the police. The co-defendant was sentenced to jail time. The defendant is 21 years-old and has no prior criminal record. He works full-time delivering pizzas and attends the culinary arts program at Massasoit. Through extensive negotiations, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan obtained a very favorable disposition for his client known as pretrial probation. On April 23, 2015, the Commonwealth placed the defendant on pretrial probation for one-year. As long as the defendant stays out of trouble, the criminal charge will be dismissed.

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan persuades Commonwealth to place his client on pretrial probation for one-year at the conclusion of which the criminal charge will be dismissed if so issues arise, and Attorney Noonan saves his client from having to pay $3,800 in restitution.

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.”

OUI-LIQUOR (second offense): NOT GUILTY

A gas station employee called 911 and reported that the Defendant pulled into the gas station and exited his vehicle and appeared to be very drunk and observed that the Defendant had fallen over. Police arrived and observed that the Defendant smelled strongly of alcohol, that his eyes were bloodshot and red, and that he was very unsteady on his feet. The police officer testified that he could not conduct any physical field sobriety tests because the Defendant was “highly intoxicated.” The police officer testified that he did not administer any physical field sobriety tests because he was concerned that the Defendant would fall and injure himself.

Result: After a jury trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan got a Not Guilty, and client avoided a convicted for second offense OUI, which carries a possible 60 day jail sentence and three-year loss of license.

SHOPLIFTING: NO CHARGES FILED

Client, a 29 year-old special education teacher with no criminal record, was detained by loss prevention officers at Shaw’s Supermarket for shoplifting various items. The issuance of a criminal complaint for shoplifting would affect the client’s employment as a special education teacher and may affect his ability to enroll in a master’s program. After he was detained by security, client received a notice in the mail from the Loss Prevention Department. Client immediately called Attorney Patrick J. Noonan who negotiated with the Loss Prevention and Legal Department at Shaw’s and convinced them not to pursue any criminal charges against his client. On March 23, 2015, the legal department at Shaw’s sent written confirmation to Attorney Noonan that they would not pursue any criminal charges against his client.

Result: No criminal charges were filed against the Defendant and client’s clean record remains intact.

ASSAULT w/ INTENT TO MURDER: NOT GUILTY

Defendant was indicted for Assault with Intent to Murder stemming from allegations that he tried to murder his wife with knives he kept throwing at her. Attorney Gerald J. Noonan and Attorney Patrick J. Noonan tried the case before a jury. At trial, the Commonwealth introduced a 911 tape in which the alleged victim was screaming and crying that her husband was trying to kill her with knives he kept throwing. The Commonwealth also presented photographs of damage inside the couple’s home including stab marks in the wall, holes in the wall, furniture tossed over, and broken glass. Attorney Gerald J. Noonan and Attorney Patrick J. Noonan argued that the Defendant directed all his destruction on the house (not his wife) by throwing knives into the wall, stabbing the wall, punching holes on the wall, and tossing over furniture. During the course of his destruction, the Defendant never touched his wife, and Attorney Noonan presented evidence that the alleged victim did not sustain any injuries and never complained of any injuries.

Result: After a three-day trial, the jury found the Defendant Not Guilty of Assault with Intent to Murder, the most serious of the indictments. “Trial opens in Brockton for ex-firefighter charged with assaulting late wife.”

ASSAULT & BATTERY: DISMISSED
ASSAULT & BATTERY w/ DANGEROUS WEAPON: DISMISSED
THREAT TO COMMIT CRIME (MURDER): DISMISSED

Brockton Police were dispatched to the Defendant’s residence after receiving a 911 call in which her husband reported that she had assaulted him with a hammer and fled the house. The husband told police that a verbal argument ensued between them and the Defendant threatened to kill him. The alleged victim stated that the Defendant same into his bedroom with a screw driver and hammer and struck him with the hammer. Police observed marks to the victim’s right shoulder. The victim took out an emergency restraining order against the Defendant, which was granted by the judge. After taking out the emergency restraining order, the victim went to spend the night at his church. The Defendant and her two sons went to the church and assaulted the victim by punching and hitting him. Attorney Gerald J. Noonan filed a pretrial Motion to Dismiss and presented an Affidavit from the victim stating that he would invoke his marital privilege and refuse to testify against his wife at trial.

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan argued that, in the absence of the victim’s testimony, the Commonwealth would unable to prove the case at trial. The judge agreed and dismissed the criminal complaints.

ASSAULT & BATTERY: RELEASED FROM CUSTODY
DISORDERLY CONDUCT: RELEASED FROM CUSTODY
RESISTING ARREST: RELEASED FROM CUSTODY
THREATS TO COMMIT ARSON: RELEASED FROM CUSTODY
STALKING: RELEASED FROM CUSTODY

The Commonwealth sought to hold the Defendant in custody for 120 days or until trial due to the seriousness of the allegations that he attempted to burn down his ex-girlfriend’s house with gasoline until police intervened to physically stop him. After a Dangerousness Hearing, Defendant was released from custody. Upon a finding of dangerousness and a finding that no conditions of release would ensure the public safety, the Defendant would be held in the House of Correction for 120 days under the new domestic violence statute. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan represented the client at the Dangerousness Hearing and thoroughly impeached and discredited the testimony of the alleged victim-girlfriend.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan saves his client from serving 120 days in jail.

TRESPASS: CWOF (9 months, admin. probation, $734.00 restitution)
VANDALISM: DISMISSED
BREAKING & ENTERING: DISMISSED
POSSESSION OF LIQUOR: DISMISSED

Plymouth Police were dispatched to a vacant residence after receiving a call that a male and female were seen walking up the driveway of the vacant home holding rocks. Police discovered 14 teenagers inside the home, including the Defendant. Police observed severe damage to the home, including trash thrown around, tagging of a red penis inside the front door, dirt in every room, pasta thrown on the kitchen floor, burned pieces of wood in the living room, a swastika painted on the bedroom wall, the words “No Jews Allowed” spray painted on the bedroom wall, testicles painted on the bedroom wall. Police arrested 14 teenagers including the Defendant. The Commonwealth estimated the damage at approximately $50,000.

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan argued that there was insufficient evidence to charge his client as being a joint-venturer in the crimes, as the evidence merely showed that the Defendant was present at the scene of the crime and something more was required.

RECEIVING STOLEN PROPERTY: DISMISSED
LARCENY FALSE PRETENSE: DISMISSED

Client was charged with Receiving Stolen Property over $250, a felony offense, stemming from allegations that she stole three pieces of jewelry from the alleged victim totaling approximately $5,430, including a gold Claddagh ring (valued at $100), a diamond pendant necklace with a gold necklace (valued at $130), a 14K gold diamond anniversary band ring (valued at $2,200), and a 14K gold teardrop solitaire ring (valued at $2,000-$3,000). The client then allegedly pawned the jewelry, claiming to be the rightful owner of the property, and received payment resulting in an additional charge of Larceny by False Pretense.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan was able to get all criminal charges dismissed outright at the second court date.

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.

BREAKING & ENTERING FOR FELONY: DISMISSED

Police responded to the breaking and entering in progress. Upon arrival to the home, police detained a man walking across the front lawn. The man confessed to breaking into the home to steal $10,000 and stated that he committed the crime with two friends named Kevin and Andrew. A short distance away, police observed two males walking on the sidewalk. They were identified as Kevin and Andrew and were placed under arrest as joint venturers in the house break. In his Motion to Dismiss, Attorney Noonan argued that his client’s mere presence at the crime scene (without any other corroborative evidence of his involvement) was insufficient to charge him as a joint venturer.

Result: After Hearing, Attorney Noonan’s Motion to Dismiss was allowed and the felony B & E charge was dismissed.

OUI-LIQUOR: NOT GUILTY

On July 8, 2013, Detective O’Connor of the Stoughton Police observed the Defendant’s vehicle traveling on Park Street / Route 27 in the town of Stoughton without any headlights on. Defendant committed a marked lanes violation and almost struck the police cruiser causing Detective O’Connor to swerve to the right in order to avoid a collision. Detective O’Connor pulled the Defendant over in a parking lot. When approached, Defendant looked at the Detective with a blank stare. She did not roll down her window. When she opened her door, the detective was “struck with an over powering odor of alcohol.” He observed that the Defendant’s eyes were bloodshot. Defendant’s speech was slurred. She could not locate her license or registration. Defendant admitted to consuming wine. Defendant had to use her vehicle and lean against the vehicle for balance. Defendant failed the one-legged stand and nine-step walk and turn. When arrested, Defendant gave a false last name. After a jury trial, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan obtained a not guilty verdict and the jury only deliberated for approximately 30 minutes. Attorney Noonan thoroughly discredited the arresting officer. In addition, Attorney Noonan showed that the Defendant’s poor performance on the field sobriety tests were due to the fact that she was wearing flip-flops, which impeded her performance. Attorney Noonan pointed out that the officer’s description of the Defendant’s vehicle, as contained in his police report, was totally wrong. Attorney Noonan presented testimony from witnesses showing that the Defendant consumed wine at her home, was not intoxicated, and left the home to pick up her niece at work in Stoughton when she was pulled over and arrested.

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan gets a Not Guilty on OUI-Liquor charge.

HARASSMENT ORDER: VACATED

In 2006, Plaintiff and his business partner formed several Florida entities for the purpose of buying, syndicating and managing a multi-million dollar commercial office building in Miami (referred to as “Property.”) In connection with buying the Property, Plaintiff issued a private (unregistered) securities offering a tenant-in-common (TIC) interests to 27 investors. 95% of the TIC owners are elderly and used their retirement monies to buy TIC interests in the Property based on the representations of Plaintiff made in the offering documents. Plaintiff’s offering promised the TIC investors fractional ownership in the Property as well as the right to receive distributions of the Property’s income. In 2007, Defendant paid $2 million to invest in the Property and became the largest of all TIC owners with an 18.67% TIC interest in the Property. Plaintiff controlled the Property’s bank accounts and handled all aspects of the Property’s financial management, including what was disclosed to the TIC’s. By the end of 2010, most of the TIC owners, including Defendant, became suspicious of Plaintiff’s management of the Property. On December 31, 2010, the TIC’s terminated Plaintiff. By March 2011, the Property was delinquent on its mortgage, owing more than $453,000 and the Property was on the verge of foreclosure. In April 2011, another company began managing the property.

The TIC’s and Defendant retained an Attorney to investigate the Plaintiff. The Law Firm demanded production of information and cooperation from Plaintiff. In response to the Law Firm’s demands, Plaintiff’s attorney claimed that Defendant and another TIC owner were “making threats” against Plaintiff. Through its investigation, the Law Firm discovered that Plaintiff stole from the Property’s bank accounts and rents and defrauded the TIC’s in several ways that were designed to conceal the nature of the payments.

On June 24, 2014, Plaintiff obtained a Harassment Order against the Defendant alleging that the Defendant had threatened him numerous times. Specifically, Defendant sent him a threatening letter via mail, sent him many threatening e-mails, threatened him with bodily harm on the telephone, and publically defamed and slandered him on the internet. Attorney Gerald J. Noonan was hired to represent the Defendant and after a hearing the Harassment Order was vacated. Attorney Noonan established that Plaintiff’s harassment order was sought as part of an ulterior motive, such as retaliation against the Defendant, to deflect his own civil and criminal liability in the five ongoing lawsuits, to poison the ongoing civil suits against him, or to gain some sort of tactical advantage against Defendant in the civil lawsuits.

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan gets Harassment Order vacated against businessman.

VIOLATION OF 209A: DISMISSED AT CLERK’S HEARING

Defendant’s wife took out an abuse prevention order against him stemming from an incident where the Defendant threatened his wife in the presence of their children. The 209A Order contained a provision prohibiting the Defendant from abusing his wife and from contacting his wife. Defendant was charged with violating the order by sending his wife an e-mail. At the Clerk’s Hearing, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan argued that the Defendant did not receive full notice of restraining order because the police had not served it a copy upon him yet – but rather read the terms of the order to him over the phone. Attorney Noonan argued that the Defendant did not have actual knowledge that the order contained a “no-contact” provision – but the Defendant’s understanding was that the order was to refrain from abuse.

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan persuades clerk-magistrate not to issue Violation of Restraining Order charge against his client.

NEGLIGENT OPERATION: DISMISSED upon MOTION

Client was charged with Negligent Operation stemming from an incident on August 14, 2014 in which a State Trooper observed his Mustang and another vehicle (Toyota) traveling northbound on Route 495. While the two vehicles were traveling on this major highway, the passenger in the Mustang and the operator of the Toyota were attempting to pass an object (business card) between the two vehicles by traveling side-by-side and having the parties reach their hands out the window. Attorney Gerald J. Noonan argued a Motion to Dismiss arguing that his client was entitled to dismissal of the criminal complaint because he was denied the opportunity of having a hearing before the clerk-magistrate.

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan’s Motion to Dismiss was allowed and the criminal complaint was dismissed upon court costs.

SHOPLIFTING: DISMISSED at CLERK’S HEARING

Client, 50-year-old school teacher with no criminal record, was charged with Shoplifting by concealing items at Hannaford’s in Norwell. At the Clerk’s Hearing, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan presented strong character evidence on his client’s behalf as being a highly respected educator in the town of Marshfield. The issuance of the criminal complaint would severely jeopardize the client’s employment and likely result in her termination as a school teacher.

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan convinced the clerk-magistrate not to issue criminal complaint against school teacher.

ASSAULT and BATTERY: DISMISSED / SEALED

Boston Police responded to a domestic disturbance in which the alleged victim reported that her boyfriend (Defendant) had punched her in the face and that he had possession of two firearms and a rifle. The alleged victim stated that the Defendant suffers from depression and had been drinking heavily all day. The alleged victim stated that the Defendant threatened her by saying, “If you don’t get out of the house I am going to shoot you” and the Defendant then punched her in the face. She then ran out of the house and called 911. Attorney Gerald J. Noonan successfully dismissed the case and sealed the criminal charge from his client’s record. This was a considerable victory given that the Defendant had no prior criminal record. He was educated in England and worked in the financial industry for years. The Defendant was seeking new employment in the financial field and the presence of the Assault and Battery charge on his record would have seriously prejudiced him getting hired.

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan gets domestic violence charge dismissed outright and permanently sealed against financial advisor.

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.

A&B with DANGEROUS WEAPON: DISMISSED PRIOR TO ARRAIGNMENT
ATTEMPT TO COMMIT A CRIME: DISMISSED PRIOR TO ARRAIGNMENT
CONSPIRACY: DISMISSED PRIOR TO ARRAIGNMENT

Winchester Police were dispatched to the hospital in response to a past assault. The alleged victim reported that he had been walking to the bank to deposit some cash when he was attacked by two people wearing masks. The second attacker was wearing brass knuckles and punched the alleged victim in the side of the head while the other assailant held him down. The first attacker’s mask fell off and the alleged victim identified him but the second attacker with the brass knuckles was never identified. The alleged victim sustained many injuries as a result of the attack and robbery, which the police photographed, including a broken nose. Defendant was charged as being a joint venturer in the armed robbery.

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan gets criminal charges dismissed outright against Juvenile prior to arraignment saving his client from having these charges on her record.

ATTEMPTED MURDER: DISMISSED
ASSAULT & BATTERY: DISMISSED
THREATS TO COMMIT MURDER: DISMISSED

Brockton Police were dispatched to a domestic violence call. The alleged victim stated that the Defendant was intoxicated and threw her to the bedroom floor and began to punch her in the face and head with a closed fist. She stated that the Defendant strangled her and she believes that she lost consciousness. The Defendant threatened to kill and the grandchild during the assault. The granddaughter witnessed the assault and called 911. Police observed that the house was in disarray with items strewn about. Police observed swelling to the face of the alleged and she was transported to the emergency room.

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan gets violence offenses dismissed outright.

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.

ASSAULT and BATTERY: DISMISSED

Defendant was a reserve police officer for the Wareham Police Department. Defendant and his girlfriend were traveling on the highway together with the girlfriend driving when they began to argue. During the argument, Defendant became angry took her cell phone and threw it out the car window. Defendant admitted to police that he gave an open-handed back hand to his girlfriend’s right ear as she was driving. The girlfriend stated that the Defendant also threw pictures of her child out the car window, as she was driving. The girlfriend stated that the Defendant hit her in the face and head, as she was driving. Police observed that the girlfriend had a swollen right ear and a fresh abrasion and small cut behind the right ear. She also had a red mark under her left eye. Attorney Noonan filed a Motion to Dismiss and successfully dismissed the criminal complaint because there was evidence that the alleged victim had committed crimes during the course of the incident, which precluded her from testifying on Fifth Amendment grounds. Specifically, there was evidence that the alleged victim had slapped the Defendant in the face several times and punched him in the groin area during the altercation. Due to the alleged victim’s erratic behavior, the Defendant activated the emergency brake and ran out of the vehicle. Attorney Noonan presented an affidavit to the court from the alleged victim wherein she states that she intends to invoke her Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. In addition, the affidavit stated that she did not want any criminal charges to be lodged against her boyfriend and that they were undergoing counseling together to resolve their issues.

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan gets domestic violence charge dismissed outright against police officer.

DRAG RACING: DISMISSED

A patrol officer observed two vehicles traveling south on Somerset Ave. in the town of Dighton and were speeding up, as they approached his police cruiser. Dighton Police stopped both vehicles and charged the parties with Drag Racing. Attorney Gerald J. Noonan filed a Motion to Dismiss arguing that there was insufficient probable cause to charge his client with Drag Racing under the statute. Specifically, he argued that there was no evidence that the Defendant “accelerated at a high rate of speed” or that the Defendant was “in competition with another operator.”

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan gets criminal charge dismissed outright against college student.

Docket No.: 1231 AC 0648

ASSAULT & BATTERY: DISMISSED

The alleged victim was an employee and caretaker at a residential facility housing individuals with mental disorders. The Defendant is a mentally retarded and intellectually disabled resident of the facility. The alleged victim claimed that the Defendant attacked him punched him in the face, spat on him, knocked him to the ground, and punched him in the head. At the clerk magistrate’s hearing, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan examined an employee and caretaker at the facility who witnessed the incident between the alleged victim and the Defendant. Attorney Noonan elicited testimony from the witness who observed the alleged victim punching the Defendant, as he was being restrained face-down on the ground. This witness told the alleged victim to stop punching the Defendant but he continued punching the Defendant anyway. The clerk-magistrate dismissed the criminal complaint.

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan persuades clerk-magistrate not to issue criminal complaint against his mentally disabled client.

ASSAULT: PRETRIAL PROBATION

Attleboro Police were dispatched to a domestic violence incident in progress. Defendant’s wife reported that the Defendant had placed his nine-year-old son in a headlock and squeezed his nose in an attempt to stop him from breathing. The Defendant continued to threaten the child by ripping the blankets off his bed, clenching his fist, and yelling, “You want to see what killing is?” The mother of the child called police because she was afraid for the safety of her nine-year-old son. Attorney Gerald J. Noonan successfully obtained a great disposition for his client known as pretrial probation. Specifically, if the Defendant completes a batterer’s program and does not get arrested for any new crimes, the case will be dismissed in one year.

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan persuades the government to place his client on pretrial probation for one-year at the conclusion of which the criminal charge will be dismissed outright.

POSSESSION with INTENT TO DISTRIBUTE: DISMISSED after HEARING

Stoughton Police were conducting undercover surveillance of a home known for firearms violations, drug violations, and overdoses. Stoughton Police followed a vehicle leaving the driveway of the residence. The vehicle pulled into the parking lot of a Gulf Gas Station. Stoughton Police set up a surveillance post across the street from the gas station. Stoughton Police observed the Defendant walk over to the vehicle that had been tailed by the Stoughton Police. Stoughton Police observed the Defendant walk over to the passenger side of the vehicle and engage in a hand-to-hand transaction. After observing the alleged drug transaction, Stoughton Police stopped the Defendant and conducted a pat-down frisk and recovered a plastic baggie containing 12 pills believed to be Oxycodone. After an evidentiary hearing on Defendant’s Motion to Suppress, Gerald J. Noonan and Patrick J. Noonan established that Stoughton Police did not have the reasonable suspicion necessary to stop the Defendant and conduct a pat-down frisk of his person. The court ruled that the stop and frisk of the Defendant was unconstitutional and suppressed all evidence, including incriminating statements made by the Defendant and all physical evidence found on his person (the Oxycodone pills).

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan gets felony drug charge dismissed outright for constitutional violations.

OPERATING UNDER THE INFLUENCE: DISMISSED upon MOTION
NEGLIGENT OPERATION: DISMISSED upon MOTION

Defendant was traveling on a secluded country road when he lost control of his pickup truck and crashed into a stone wall. Defendant admitted to drinking six Heineken beers at a bar and he failed all field sobriety tests. In pretrial proceedings, Attorney Noonan obtained a court-order for the prosecution to provide him with the booking video of his arrest and his color booking photo. The first time the case was scheduled for trial, Attorney Noonan moved to dismiss because the prosecution did not provide him with the booking video or booking photo. The judge continued the trial to give the prosecution another opportunity to provide defense counsel with the discovery. Attorney Noonan subpoenaed the officer responsible for maintaining the booking videos and booking photos to appear at trial. At the second trial date, the prosecution did not provide the discovery to the Defendant. In his Motion to Dismiss, Attorney Noonan argued that the criminal complaints must be dismissed because the Commonwealth lost or destroyed exculpatory evidence by willfully disobeying court orders and dodging the subpoena.

Result: Attorney Noonan’s Motion to Dismiss was allowed and all charges were dismissed outright by the judge.

ASSAULT and BATTERY: PRETRIAL PROBATION

An identified caller contacted police and reported that she observed the Defendant and a woman inside a car in a parking lot. The civilian witness reported that she observed the Defendant pull the alleged victim’s hair and grab her arm in an attempt to prevent her from leaving the vehicle. The Defendant admitted to grabbing the alleged victim’s arm. The alleged victim reported that the Defendant did grab her arm as she was attempting to exit the vehicle. Attorney Gerald J. Noonan successfully obtained an excellent disposition for his client known as pretrial probation. Specifically, the case would be dismissed in six-month provided that the Defendant not commit any new crime.

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan gets domestic violence charge dismissed against college student and saves his client from possible deportation from the U.S.

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.”

ASSAULT and BATTERY: DISMISSED
THREATS TO COMMIT CRIME: DISMISSED

The alleged victim went to the Brockton Police Station to report that her boyfriend (Defendant) and father of her two children assaulted her by hitting her on the left side of her face. After the assault, the alleged victim went to her parents’ home with her two children. The alleged victim reported that the Defendant called her and made threatening statements to her on the cell phone. She reported that the Defendant stated that he had a knife and unless she wanted someone to get hurt she should go with him.

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan dismisses all charges due to the fact that the alleged victim asserted her Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination in court.

THREATS TO COMMIT ASSAULT & BATTERY: DISMISSED
ASSAULT & BATTERY: DISMISSED

Alleged Victim #1 is the mother of the Defendant’s child. She told police that the Defendant that the Defendant came over to pick his son for a visit and instigated a fight with her husband and threatened to kick his ass. The husband (Alleged Victim #2) stated that the Defendant jumped out of his truck, threw his coat on the ground, and began shouting expletives at him. The Defendant also threatened to “light him up” and goaded him by saying, “Make my day.” Defendant refused the leave the property until they called the police. Later in the day, the alleged victim and her husband went to the Defendant’s house to pick up the son. She stated that the Defendant attacked her husband in the driveway by grabbing him, putting him over the trunk of the car, and repeatedly struck him in the face until the Defendant’s mother pulled him off. Police observed fresh scratches and red marks to the face of the husband, Alleged Victim #2. Police observed that Alleged Victim #2’s clothing was disheveled. Alleged Victim #2 stated that the Defendant grabbed him by the face and threw him into his car and assaulted him until the Defendant’s mother pulled him off. Alleged Victim #1 obtained an emergency restraining stating that there has been a history of threatening behavior by the Defendant. At a clerk-magistrate hearing, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan presented testimony of witnesses to the incident showing that the Defendant acted in self-defense. The mother and brother of the Defendant testified that the Defendant acted in self-defense when Alleged Victim #2 clenched his fist and raised it at the Defendant. The Defendant, in response, grabbed Alleged Victim #2 and placed his chest against the trunk of the car. Witnesses testified that the Defendant never punched Alleged Victim #2. Defendant stated that he would not let the Alleged Victim go because he felt that the Alleged Victim might attack him. Testimony was presented that the Alleged Victim claimed some responsibility in the altercation by admitting that he had made some mistakes. Testimony was presented that the Defendant remained calm, cool, and collected when the police arrived. Lastly, Attorney Noonan presented evidence that there has been a history of animosity between the parties prior to this incident.

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan persuades clerk-magistrate not to issue criminal complaint against electrician.

ASSAULT & BATTERY (on minor) DISMISSED
AB with DANGEROUS WEAPON (on minor) DISMISSED

Sharon Police were dispatched to a domestic dispute between the Defendant (father) and his 14 year-old son (alleged victim) who told police that his father hit him across the face with his open hands and then hit him a couple of times in the butt with a frying pan. Upon arrival, Police observed that the alleged victim was visibly shaken and sobbing. Police observed red marks on the alleged victim’s upper thigh and butt.

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan gets aggravated felony charge dismissed outright.

POSSESSION OF COCAINE: DISMISSED PRIOR TO ARRAIGNMENT

Brockton Police pulled over the Defendant’s vehicle for an expired registration sticker. While preparing for a tow truck, the officer observed plastic baggie containing cocaine residue on the driver’s side floor. The officer conducted a pat-frisk of the Defendant and found a second plastic baggie containing cocaine. The Defendant admitted that the white powder was in fact cocaine. A field test showed that the substance was positive for cocaine. The cocaine in the Defendant’s pocket had an approximate weight of 0.5 grams. Attorney Gerald J. Noonan continued the arraignment and had the Defendant enroll in an outpatient substance abuse treatment program. Attorney Noonan filed a Motion to Dismiss under Chapter 111E arguing that the case should be dismissed, as this was a first-time drug offense for which the Defendant received drug treatment. Attorney Noonan tendered documentation showing that the Defendant successfully completed the outpatient drug treatment program.

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan gets case dismissed prior to arraignment saving his client from having a drug charge on his record.

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.”

OUI-LIQUOR: DISMISSED

A State Trooper observed the Defendant speeding on Route 95 and clocked his speed at 82 mph. The Trooper observed the vehicle weaving and swerving and initiated a motor vehicle stop. The Trooper had to sound his air horn several times, sound his siren several times, and use his PA system several times to get the Defendant to pull over. The trooper detected an odor of alcohol and observed that the defendant’s eyes were glassy and bloodshot and that his speech was slurred and thick-tongued. The Defendant repeated the same number three times on the counting test. Defendant consented to a breathalyzer test and registered a blood alcohol content of 0.11. Attorney Gerald J. Noonan filed discovery motions to obtain all periodic testing and maintenance logs for the breath test machine because the Defendant’s first attempt at the breath test was terminated because the machine registered an “interference.” The case was scheduled for trial four times and Attorney Noonan appeared ready for trial each time. On the last trial date, Attorney Noonan filed a Motion to Dismiss on the basis that the Commonwealth failed to comply with court orders to provide the Defendant with the breathalyzer discovery, which was exculpatory because the BT machine malfunctioned during the Defendant’s first attempt to provide a sample.

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan gets OUI-Liquor charge dismissed against business executive.

CRIMINAL HARASSMENT: DISMISSED
CRIMINAL HARASSMENT: DISMISSED

Client, a retiree, was accused of posting nasty, damaging, and vulgar comments about two victims on Craig’s List on multiple occasions causing the victims to suffer emotional distress. An administrative subpoena to Craig’s List linked the client’s IP address to the postings. Defendant admitted to police that he posted the comments about the victims.

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan convinces clerk-magistrate not to issue the harassment charges against his client.

ASSAULT & BATTERY: DISMISSED upon MOTION

Defendant was charged with Assault & Battery upon the alleged victim stemming from an incident at a bar in Easton, Massachusetts in which the defendant allegedly punched the alleged victim in the face. A seasoned Easton police officer investigated the incident and interviewed the defendant and the alleged victim. The police officer determined that the defendant’s version of events at the bar was more credible than the alleged victim’s version. A clerk’s hearing was conducted on the criminal complaint against the defendant for Assault & Battery. At the clerk’s hearing, the magistrate decided not to issue any criminal complaint and advised the parties not to contact each other any further. The alleged victim was dissatisfied with the clerk’s decision and filed a private application for criminal complaint against the defendant for Assault & Battery for punching him in the face at the bar. Attorney Gerald J. Noonan filed a Motion to Dismiss. Attorney Noonan argued that the Easton Police did not find the alleged victim’s version of the events at the bar to be credible. Defendant’s version to police was that the alleged victim punched him in the face, not the other way around. Attorney Noonan argued that the alleged victim was filing this private criminal complaint in retaliation against the defendant because they had a contentious and hostile relationship as neighbors. Prior to the alleged incident in the bar, defendant contacted police and reported that the alleged victim (his neighbor) was spying on him and defendant’s wife with a video camera. Defendant also contacted police, prior to the incident at the bar, and reported that the defendant was posting signs on his property threatening the defendant and his wife. Attorney Noonan argued that the alleged victim was not credible and was abusing the court process by filing this private application for criminal complaint. Attorney Noonan introduced evidence that the alleged victim had 44 entries on his criminal record, mostly for violent offenses, such as: Stalking, Assault & Battery, and Violation of Restraining Orders. Conversely, Attorney Noonan presented evidence that his client had never been arrested or charged with a crime in his life.

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan’s Motion to Dismiss the criminal complaint charging defendant with Assault & Battery was allowed, and the criminal complaint was dismissed.

OUI-LIQUOR: DISMISSED
NEGLIGENT OPERATION: DISMISSED
DISTURBING THE PEACE: DISMISSED

A civilian witness called the Whitman Police to report a motor vehicle accident in which he was struck by a purple Jeep and two men fled on foot. One suspect was described as wearing a white shirt and the other suspect was described as wearing an orange shirt. Moments later, a male party (co-defendant) approached the scene on foot and told police that he was riding as a passenger in the Jeep. Later, a K-9 located the Defendant in the woods approximately 100 feet away. The co-defendant pled Guilty to Witness Intimidation. The defense was premised on the argument that the Commonwealth would be unable to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the Defendant (and not the co-defendant) was the operator of the purple Jeep. See Commonwealth v. Leonard, 401 Mass. 470 (1988). On April 7, 2011, the case was scheduled for trial and Attorney Gerald J. Noonan appeared ready. The Commonwealth requested a continuance because the eyewitness failed to appear. Attorney Noonan objected to the continuance and moved for dismissal.

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan gets all charges, including OUI-Liquor, dismissed against sheet metal worker.

ASSAULT & BATTERY: NOT GUILTY
ASSAULT & BATTERY w/ DANGEROUS WEAPON: NOT GUILTY

Client, and five other teenage Defendants, were all indicted on charges in connection with a house party in East Bridgewater. The parents of a high-school teen had gone away to Paris on vacation while there 18 year-old son stayed with neighbors. One acquaintance suggested a party but the homeowner’s son refused. Nevertheless, messages were sent throughout Facebook that there was a party at the East Bridgewater home. At the party, Defendants allegedly caused more than $50,000 in property damage. Police reported that blood and urine were smeared on the floors and walls, marble countertops were cracked, an antique couch was set on fire, windows were broken, jewelry, electronics and golf clubs were stolen. The homeowner’s truck door had been ripped when one defendant struck a parked car. The Commonwealth alleged that the alleged victim (a guest at the party) was thrown to the kitchen floor and was kicked repeatedly by the Defendant and others. The Commonwealth granted the alleged victim immunity to testify against the Defendant and others involved in the attack.

First, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan thoroughly discredited and impeached the alleged victim by eliciting testimony of his violent character and propensity. See Commonwealth v. Adjutant, 443 Mass. 649 (2005). On cross-examination, Attorney Noonan elicited testimony that the alleged victim consumed approximately seven beers and was intoxicated. Attorney Noonan elicited testimony that the alleged victim (prior to the incident in the kitchen with the defendant) participated in an attack on another party-goer by hitting him in the face and throwing him down the stairs.

Second, Attorney Noonan’s raised the “Martin defense” or defense of others arguing that the Defendant used reasonable force against the alleged victim to defend another party-goer who was being attacked in the kitchen by the alleged victim. See Commonwealth v. Martin, 369 Mass. 640 (1976). Attorney Noonan elicited testimony that the alleged victim was “pumped up” and “wanted to get it on” and that he challenged another party-goer to a fight saying, “I want to fight you. Let’s fight.” Another witness testified that she told the alleged victim “to relax” and attempted to calm him down and told him, “Leave the kid alone.” Another witness testified that he attempted to calm down the Defendant and said to him, “Who cares about who can beat who up? Just relax.” As the alleged victim was challenging the other party-goer to a fight, the party-goer’s back was to the refrigerator in the kitchen. The Defendant intervened to diffuse the situation before it became physical. Attorney Noonan elicited testimony that the alleged victim (not the defendant) was the initial aggressor in the melee having punched the Defendant in the face. The Defendant, acting in self-defense and in defense of others, returned fire. With regards to the dangerous weapon indictment (shod foot), Attorney Noonan elicited testimony from a percipient witness that she did not see the Defendant kick the alleged victim while he was laying on the kitchen floor.

Result: At the conclusion of the five-day trial, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan gets Not Guilty verdicts on all charges against his client while four of the defendants were convicted.

This Case In the News

• “Four of six defendants convicted in East Bridgewater house party frenzy”
• “Six East Bridgewater residents indicted in connection with raging house party.”
• “Trial begins Monday for East Bridgewater house party suspects.”

BREAKING & ENTERING: DISMISSED
LARCENY over $250: DISMISSED

Defendant was alleged to have broken into his girlfriend’s apartment and stolen a mirror, Northface jacket, and $480 in cash. Attorney Gerald J. Noonan was able to get the criminal complaints dismissed and remanded for a clerk-magistrate’s hearing. Originally, Brockton Police sought a show cause hearing and the criminal complaint issued because the Defendant failed to appear. Attorney Noonan presented evidence that the Defendant never received notice of the show cause hearing because the summons was returned, as it was sent to an insufficient address. Because the Defendant failed to appear at the show cause hearing, Cambridge Police arrested him at his business. The Cambridge Police, however, mistakenly brought the Defendant to the Cambridge District Court for an arraignment when they were supposed to bring him to the Brockton District Court. As a result, Defendant was held in the House of Correction for three days until he was transported to the Brockton District Court (the correct court) for his arraignment. Patrick J. Noonan (then a third-year law student) filed a Memorandum of Law for the clerk-magistrate to consider in determining whether to issue the criminal complaints. With regards to the Breaking & Entering, Patrick J. Noonan argued in the Memo that the Defendant did not break into the “dwelling place of another” because he had a right to habitation and occupancy in the apartment. See Commonwealth v. Robbins, 422 Mass. 305 (1996). Specifically, Defendant paid rent, had a key to the apartment, and lived in the apartment for four-months prior to the incident. With regards to the Larceny, Attorney Noonan presented evidence that the mirror belonged to the Defendant, not the alleged victim. Specifically, Attorney Noonan presented photographs of the mirror that pre-dated the alleged incident in the custody of the Defendant. With regards to the Northface jacket, Attorney Noonan presented evidence that the Defendant purchased the Northface jacket on his credit card and provided a copy of his bank statement to the clerk-magistrate. Lastly, Attorney Noonan argued that the Defendant was a jilted lover and upset at the Defendant for breaking up with her and getting back together with his wife. Attorney Noonan presented Facebook messages (post-dating the incident) sent to the Defendant’s wife from the alleged victim where she blasts the Defendant for breaking up with her but she mentions nothing about the alleged breaking and entering and larcenies.

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan convinces clerk-magistrate not to issue criminal complaints on felony charges against his client.

LARCENY BY CHECK: DISMISSED
LARCENY BY CHECK: DISMISSED

Clients owned and operated a sporting goods store and purchased merchandise from a vendor in the amount of $9,626.65. Clients wrote several checks to pay the balance. All checks were returned for insufficient funds and the balance was never paid. As a result, the clients were charged with Larceny by Check. Patrick J. Noonan (then a third-year law student) filed a Motion to Dismiss (which was denied) on venue grounds, as the events alleged to have occurred did not take place “in the vicinity” of Bristol County but in Plymouth County. See Commonwealth v. Adelson, 40 Mass. App. Ct. 585 (1996)(discussing factors in determining vicinity in larceny by check case). Patrick J. Noonan then drafted a Motion to Dismiss on the grounds that the criminal court was an improper venue to settle the dispute, as the alleged victim had an adequate remedy to recover the monies owed in a civil action and failed to do so. See Taylor v. Newton Div. of the District Court Dep’t, 416 Mass. 1006 (1993)(noting that the petitioner, who was not permitted to file applications for criminal complaint, “had a right to proceed in a civil action.”). In addition, Patrick J. Noonan argued in the Motion to Dismiss that it was an abuse of process for someone to use the criminal process to collect a civil debt. See Carroll v. Gillespie, 14 Mass. App. Ct. 12 (1982)(defendant sought to use the criminal process to collect a civil debt). Lastly, Patrick J. Noonan argued in the Motion to Dismiss that the Defendants’ did not have the intent to permanently deprive the alleged victim of the money, as they filed for bankruptcy shortly thereafter and were discharged from all debts.

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan’s Motion to Dismiss was allowed and all criminal charges were dismissed against his clients.

ASSAULT & BATTERY: DISMISSED AT CLERK’S HEARING

Defendant and five other people went to the Patriots football game at Gillette Stadium in Foxboro. After the game, the members of the party got into their vehicles in the parking lot to leave the stadium. Defendant’s son was operating a vehicle with the defendant and defendant’s brother riding as passengers. The other two members of the party were traveling in a separate vehicle. Defendant’s son drove the vehicle toward the exit of the parking lot with the second vehicle following. As they were proceeding in a line of traffic toward the exit, a large SUV started to back out of a parking space and was backing into the line of cars. Defendant’s rolled down the window and told the driver of the SUV to move out of the way, as the SUV was about to back into traffic. Defendant exited the vehicle to help the SUV back out. Suddenly, the SUV backed up and struck the defendant knocking him to the ground. When he was knocked down to the ground, defendant threw his whoopee pie at the SUV and raised his arms in the air. Defendant approached the operator of the SUV and told him that he just struck him and that the defendant would like to obtain his license and registration. The operator exited the SUV and started yelling at the defendant at the top of his lungs. The male operator grabbed the defendant by the armpit and pushed him backwards, still screaming at him. As the male operator was assaulting the defendant, he knocked him into a female party – belonging to the male operator’s group. The male operator yelled at the defendant, “You just hit a woman!” Defendant replied, “If I did hit somebody, I am sorry, I didn’t mean to.” The male operator pressed his elbow into defendant’s neck and pressed him up against a light post. The other men in the SUV converged on the defendant, threw him to the ground, and they all started to punch him. The members of the defendant’s party tried to intercede but they were assaulted by the other males. The SUV then sped off. Stadium security and city police were called to the scene where the SUV party claimed that the defendant hit the female in the face. The officers immediately placed the defendant under arrest for Assault & Battery on the woman without hearing the defendant’s version of events.

Result: At defendant’s arraignment, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan filed a Motion to Dismiss on the basis that the defendant was denied his opportunity to have a Show Cause Hearing. The criminal complaint was dismissed, and a Show Cause Hearing was held. At the Show Cause Hearing, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan presented the defendant’s version of the incident, e.g., that defendant was struck by the SUV, that defendant was assaulted and injured by the group of males in the SUV, and that the defendant inadvertently struck the female party in the course of the assault on him. After hearing, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan convinced the clerk-magistrate not to issue the criminal complaint against his client.

OPERATING UNDER THE INFLUENCE: DISMISSED

On October 23, 2008, Defendant was involved in a motor vehicle accident in which his vehicle struck a telephone pole and he was taken by ambulance to the emergency room. Defendant was not placed under arrest or charged with a crime. On January 14, 2009, a criminal complaint issued against the Defendant for OUI-Liquor. On December 17, 2009, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan argued a Motion to Dismiss the criminal complaints because his client was denied the opportunity to appear at a clerk-magistrate’s hearing and to challenge the probable cause needed to charge him with the offense. Attorney Noonan argued that the police report contained insufficient probable cause that the defendant was under the influence.

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan’s Motion to Dismiss was allowed and the criminal complaint was dismissed. The Commonwealth decided not to pursue the charges after the criminal complaint was dismissed.

MALICIOUS DESTRUCTION OF PROPERTY: DISMISSED
TAGGING PROPERTY: DISMISSED

Defendant, a high school student with no prior criminal record, was charged with Malicious Destruction of Property and Tagging Property in connection with a string of incidents reported to Easton Police that many properties had been broken into, trespassed, and marked with graffiti and spray paint. Police interviewed the defendant who confessed to tagging all the properties. Attorney Gerald J. Noonan presented evidence to the District Attorney’s Office that his client was a young man with no criminal record. He was outstanding student in high school and had been applying to colleges. Attorney Noonan presented the prosecutor with letters from his client’s teachers showing that he was a good student and a good kid. Attorney Noonan had his client pay restitution to the property owner for the damage caused to his property.

Result: After extensive negotiations with the District Attorney’s Office, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan gets all property damage crimes dismissed against his high school client with no criminal record.

ASSAULT & BATTERY: DISMISSED

Defendant was charged with Assault & Battery stemming from an incident in which police responded to a 911 call and upon arrival the alleged victim (defendant’s girlfriend) alleged that the defendant struck her. Attorney Gerald J. Noonan marked the case for trial. At the trial, the alleged victim invoked her Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. Had the alleged victim testified at trial, her answers with regards to the alleged incident would tend to incriminate her. After invoking her Fifth Amendment privilege, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan filed a Motion to Dismiss arguing that the Commonwealth did not have sufficient evidence to proceed to trial absent the testimony of the alleged victim. Attorney Noonan’s Motion to Dismiss was allowed and the criminal complaint was dismissed.

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan gets Assault & Battery charge against military man dismissed outright at trial.

RECEIVING STOLEN PROPERTY: DISMISSED
SHOPLIFTING: DISMISSED
SHOPLIFTING: DISMISSED
SHOPLIFTING: DISMISSED

Police were dispatched to Target for a report of a male party cutting open boxes of merchandise and putting them in his pockets. Defendant was also seen opening videogames and removing them from the cases and placing them in a cooler. Defendant was also seen opening up videogames and placing them into his pockets. Police arrested the Defendant and recovered videogames in his pockets. They also located other merchandise that he hid inside the cooler. The security officer provided police with surveillance footage showing that the Defendant had come into the store on two previous occasions and had stolen a large number of videogames each time. When conducting an inventory of the Defendant’s vehicle, police recovered stolen property from Papa Ginos. The client was 20 years old and had no prior criminal record. Attorney Gerald J. Noonan had his client pay restitution to all the victims and convinced the District Attorney’s Office to dismiss all the charges.

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan gets all criminal charges dismissed against 20 year-old defendant.

OUI-LIQUOR (second offense): NOT GUILTY

On June 1, 2008, police were dispatched for a caller reporting an erratic operator. The caller was actually following the Defendant while reporting the information to police. The officer followed the Defendant’s vehicle and observed her cross the yellow center line. Defendant did not pull over right away but continued traveling for another fifty yards before finally pulling over to the very edge of the roadway. The officer asked Defendant to exit the vehicle to perform field sobriety tests. She stated that she had been coming from a wedding and denied drinking any alcohol. The officer detected a strong odor of alcohol coming from her breathe and he observed that her eyes were bloodshot. Defendant exited the vehicle in bare-feet stating that she had been wearing heels all night. Defendant failed all field sobriety tests, which included the one-legged stand and nine-step walk and turn. During booking, the officer stated that she was unsteady on her feet, that she walked into a wall, and that she almost fell into the hallway when being escorted to her cell. The officer stated that the Defendant’s face was flush, that her eyes were glassy and bloodshot, and that she appeared to be confused. Three months prior to her arrest, Defendant was convicted of OUI-Liquor having registered a blood alcohol content of .22, making this a second offense. At trial, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan called a mechanic to testify. The mechanic had inspected and test-driven the Defendant’s vehicle and he testified that the vehicle would drift in a certain direction because the alignment was bad. Attorney Noonan called a witness who testified that he attended the wedding with the Defendant prior to the arrest and that he sat at the same table with her during the wedding. The witness testified that he did not observe the Defendant consume any alcohol at the wedding and that she appeared sober at the wedding. Finally, Attorney Noonan impeached the officer by introducing Defendant’s color booking photo, which showed that her eyes were clear and face was normal in contradiction to the officer’s testimony that her face was flush and that her eyes were glassy and bloodshot.

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan gets Not Guilty verdict on second offense OUI saving his client from possible 60 days in jail and a three-year suspension of driver’s license.

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.

OUI-LIQUOR: NOT GUILTY

On November 29, 2006, Boston Police officers heard a vehicle spinning its tires and rapidly accelerating on Harvard Ave. in Brighton. The officers then stopped Defendant’s vehicle on Harvard Ave. The officer, in fear for his safety, immediately removed the operator from the vehicle. Immediately, the officer detected a strong odor of alcohol coming from the operator and the officer observed that his eyes were extremely bloodshot and glassy. Defendant’s speech was slurred and he was unsteady on his feet. Defendant failed all four field sobriety tests, which included the nine step walk and turn, the one-legged stand, the counting test, and the alphabet test. At the police station, Defendant took a breathalyzer test and registered a blood alcohol content of 0.11.

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan gets Not Guilty on OUI-Liquor charge against defendant with 0.11 blood alcohol content.

CONSPIRACY TO TRAFFIC COCAINE: NOLLE PROSEQUI
TRAFFICKING COCAINE: DISMISSED
TRAFFICKING IN SCHOOL ZONE: NOLLE PROSEQUI

Attleboro Police in conjunction with the DEA commenced a narcotics investigation of Suspect #1. Police engaged in many controlled buys with Suspect #1 over the span of 8-9 months. Suspect #1 would depart from his home and sell drugs to an undercover officer at the same location. Suspect #1 engaged in at least controlled buys with police selling large quantities of cocaine (24.7 grams, 53.7 grams, 44.4 grams, 22.1 grans, 24.3 grams). On November 17, 2005, Defendant and Suspect #1 departed from Suspect #1’s residence to engage in a drug sale. Defendant drove Suspect #1 from his residence to the location of the drug sale in a Mazda pick-truck. Suspect #1 then sold 22.3 grams of cocaine to the undercover officer from the Mazda pick-up truck. Police also searched through the trash at Suspect #1’s residence and found evidence of narcotics distribution. The police sought arrest warrants for Suspect #1, Defendant, and two other defendants. Police executed a search of Suspect #1 residence and found 61.8 grams of cocaine, $6,979.00 in cash, and other evidence of drug distribution. Attorney Gerald J. Noonan argued a Motion to Dismiss the Indictments (denied) on the basis that the Commonwealth presented false and deceptive evidence to the grand jury. Mainly, the Commonwealth neglected to introduce exculpatory evidence that the surveillance team did not identify the driver of the pick-up truck in the drug transaction of November 17, 2005, except as an “unknown male.” Attorney Noonan demanded production of police reports concerning the alleged transaction of November 17, 2005 and was only provided with an Attleboro Police Report. Defendant was facing a very lengthy prison sentence and definite deportation if convicted of the offenses. Attorney Gerald J. Noonan was able to get all charges dropped and the Trafficking charge reduced to Distribution of Class B and dismissed after one-year so long as the Defendant did not commit any new offenses. Result: On November 20, 2008, Drug Distribution charge was dismissed and Defendant avoids very length prison sentence and deportation from the United States.

LEAVING THE SCENE PROPERTY DAMAGE: DISMISSED
OPERATING RECKLESSLY: DISMISSED

Police received two calls reporting that they heard loud skidding followed by a loud crash. Upon arrival, police observed fresh skid marks and damage to a stone wall in front of someone’s property. The vehicle drove off striking a second stone wall. Boulders from the stone wall were scattered all over the homeowner’s front lawn. Police found a license plate at the scene, which was registered to the Defendant. Police went to the Defendant’s residence and observed fresh heavy damage to his vehicle with the license plate missing. Defendant admitted to police that he had been driving in the area and he must have lost control of his vehicle but he denied hitting any stone wall.

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan persuades clerk-magistrate not to issue criminal complaints against recent college graduate.

ASSAULT & BATTERY: DISMISSED

Defendant was formerly employed at a gas station and was fired by his employer for allegedly stealing money and gas. The alleged victim (former employer) states that he went to his daughter’s school to pick her up when he was confronted by the Defendant who swore at him and pushed him to the floor injuring his hands, nose, elbow, face, knee and hip. As a result of the assault and battery, the alleged victim went to the emergency room.

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan gets Assault & Battery charge dismissed.

OUI-LIQUOR (0.19 BAC) NOT GUILTY

Hanover Police were dispatched to a motor vehicle accident in which a motor vehicle had ended up in a wooded area. Upon arrival, the police officer observed a red pick-up truck in the woods approximately 15-feet off the roadway. The motor vehicle was damaged and hit several branches. There was no one inside the vehicle. The officer observed approximately 100 feet of skid marks leading up to the motor vehicle. While checking the area for the operator, Defendant approached the police officer. The officer asked who he was to which the Defendant replied, “It’s my truck.” The officer asked him if he was driving the truck and the Defendant replied, “Yeah, I don’t know what the fuck happened.” The officer observed that the Defendant had bloodshot eyes and smelled of alcohol. Defendant stated to the officer, “I’m fucked.” Defendant failed all field sobriety tests, which included the alphabet test, the counting test, the nine step heel-to-toe test, and the one-legged stand. Back at the police station, Defendant agreed to take a breath test and his blood alcohol content was 0.19, more than double the legal limit. Attorney Gerald J. Noonan acquitted his client of OUI-Liquor by attacking the Commonwealth’s case by showing that the Commonwealth failed to present sufficient evidence to show that the Defendant was the “operator” of the motor vehicle.

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan gets Not Guilty on OUI-Liquor charge where defendant had a blood alcohol content of 0.19.

CARRYING DANGEROUS WEAPON: DISMISSED
POSS. OF LIQUOR: DISMISSED

On August 12, 2007, West Bridgewater pulled over a vehicle for speeding. The operator was arrested for OUI-liquor. Upon making the stop, police observed all the occupants making furtive movements. Defendant was the front seat passenger. Police observed him to be possessing a twelve-ounce can of beer. Police detected a strong odor of marijuana coming from his mouth. Police observed chewed up pieces of marijuana residue in his mouth. Police pat-frisked the Defendant and found a kitchen steak knife in his front pocket with a homemade paper sheath.

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan gets all criminal charges dismissed against active member of the military.

POSSESSION OF CLASS B SUBSTANCE: DISMISSED

Brockton Police observed the Defendant seated in his vehicle in the parking lot of Stop & Shop doing drugs and snorting cocaine for approximately 10 minutes. With the Defendant’s permission, police searched his vehicle and found a plastic baggie containing a “large amount of cocaine.”

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan gets drug charge dismissed.

LARCENY OF A FIREARM: NOT GUILTY
LARCENY OF A FIREARM: NOT GUILTY
LARCENY OF DRUGS: NOT GUILTY
LARCENY OF DRUGS: NOT GUILTY
LARCENY OF DRUGS: NOT GUILTY
ENTERING DWELLING by FALSE PRETENSE: NOT GUILTY
WITNESS INTIMIDATION: NOT GUILTY

Police were dispatched to a residence for a report of a burglary. Upon arrival, police spoke to the homeowner. The homeowner stated that somebody broke into her gun safe and stole two firearms. The homeowner also stated that somebody stole her prescription medication from her pill bag. She told police that she felt the Defendant stole the firearms and prescription pills. Two days before she called police, David (a friend of the homeowner) came over to the homeowner’s house. David came over the house with Kevin, the Defendant. David asked the homeowner where she keeps her guns because Kevin wants to shoot it. She stated that she kept the guns in a safe but she couldn’t find the key. David kept asking her about the gun and the key. David and Kevin came back to her home later that evening. The homeowner told police that the Defendant kept walking in and out of her house. David and Kevin left the home a short time later. The next day, the homeowner discovered that her guns and prescription pills were missing. The homeowner stated that David and Kevin were the only people inside her home from the time she last saw the firearms until the firearms went missing. She stated that her prescription medications were in her pill bag before David and Kevin came over her house.

After she reported the guns missing, the homeowner called the police later that evening and reported that one of the guns was put in her mailbox. She told police that she believed David called her and told her that the gun was in her mailbox. Police were unable to extract useable fingerprints from the gun safe. The homeowner called to report to police that she saw the Defendant when she was in Taunton and that the Defendant threatened her by saying that she would be sorry if she were to testify against David. Later on, the homeowner called the police to report that the Defendant was pulling in and out of her driveway in a dark vehicle to scare her.

Result: After a two-day bench trial, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan gets Not Guilty verdicts on all 7 criminal offenses.

POSSESSION OF CLASS B SUBSTANCE: DISMISSED

Abington Police observed a dark colored vehicle parked in a parking lot at night with the headlights off. The parking lot was known to police as being an area of illegal drug activity. Police observed the occupants looking down at the center console. As the officers approached the vehicle, they observed the passenger holding a crack pipe and having crack cocaine in his possession. Police observed the driver to be placing a white substance in the pipe. Police searched the vehicle and found crack cocaine and three crack pipes.

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan gets drug charge dismissed.

THREAT TO COMMIT A CRIME: DISMISSED
CRIMINAL HARASSMENT: DISMISSED

Police received a 911 call reporting threatening phone calls. Upon arrival, the female caller stated that she received several phones in which the Defendant threatened to “pop her daughter when he gets the chance.” Defendant had been in a four-year dating relationship with the daughter until they broke up. She reported to police that the Defendant is known to carry a gun. Later, the alleged victim (defendant’s ex-girlfriend) walked into the police station and reported that the Defendant threatened her with a gun. She stated that he threatened her with a gun on a prior occasion. She stated that on two different occasions the Defendant punched her. She stated that the Defendant has called her and sent text messages saying that he has guns and isn’t afraid to die. She provided police with some of the text messages.

Result: On the day of trial, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan got all criminal charges dismissed.

OUI-LIQUOR: NOT GUILTY

A State Trooper observed the Defendant passed his police cruiser on Route 91 South traveling at a high rate of speed in excess of 100 mph. The Trooper pursued the Defendant’s vehicle reaching speeds in excess of 100 mph and at one point clocked his speed at 110 mph. The Trooper detected an odor of alcohol and a faint odor of burnt marijuana emitting from the Defendant’s vehicle. The Trooper observed that the Defendant’s eyes were glassy and bloodshot that his speech was slurred and that he appeared lethargic. Defendant accused the Trooper of racially profiling him and being trigger happy. Defendant admitted to consuming two beers. Defendant failed the alphabet test. On the one-legged stand, Defendant raised his leg above the requested six-inches to thigh level because she wanted to “do extra.” However, the Trooper noted that he counted to seven and put his foot down on the ground. Defendant failed the finger-to-nose test on five attempts. At the police station, Defendant was argumentative and uncooperative. He immediately stated, “I have to piss.” He accused the Trooper of having a quota. He refused to tell the Trooper that phone number and the name of the person he called from the police station. During booking, Defendant unbuttoned his shirt, got on his knees, and raised his arms saying. “I’ll get naked, whatever you want me to do.” Defendant then fell asleep in his cell.

Result: After a three-day trial in the Lawrence District Court, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan gets Not Guilty verdict for his client.

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.”

POSSESSION w/ INTENT DISTRIBUTE: NOT GUILTY
SCHOOL ZONE VIOLATION: NOT GUILTY

Brockton Police Officers were assigned to foot patrol in the area of Legion Parkway in Brockton, which is a high-crime area. While on foot patrol, an informant told officers that a tall black male was dealing crack out of a white SUV in front of the Alamo Bar. The officers went to the Alamo Bar and inquired within as to owner of the white SUV. They received no response from the patrons inside the bar. One of the officers was approached by the bartender who stated that Michael Shelby is dealing crack and has made numerous trips to the bathroom to conduct drug sales. The officer recognized the name Michael Shelby and knew him to be a large black male. The officers then observed the Defendant walking westerly on the sidewalk and they followed him. The officers observed the Defendant discard some papers (Lottery tickets) on the sidewalk. Observing this violation of a city ordinance (littering), the officer called out to the Defendant, “Shelby, stop.” Defendant did not stop but walked quickly for approximately 20-25’ and he entered a convenient store abruptly. One officer observed the Defendant discard something in the trash container inside the convenient store. The officer approached the trash container and observed what appeared to be crack cocaine. The officer spoke with the clerk who confirmed that the person who just left had thrown something in the trash. Meanwhile, the other officer confronted the Defendant on the sidewalk. Officers arrested the Defendant and found two cell phones and $1,430 in cash. Attorney Gerald J. Noonan argued a Motion to Suppress the Evidence seized from his client (cell phones and cash) on the grounds that the Brockton Police relied upon a littering violation as a pretext to disguise their real reason for stopping the Defendant. The Motion was denied by Judge Jeffrey Locke but defense counsel elicited valuable testimony for the subsequent trial. At the trial, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan attacked the credibility of the police officers. Specifically, Attorney Noonan challenged the testimony of the officer that he observed the Defendant discard something in the trash can inside the convenient store, which provided the basis for arresting the Defendant. Attorney Noonan pointed out that the officer was in no position to have made that observation. The officer was approximately 40-feet away from the convenient store when he supposedly observed the Defendant (through a glass door at approximately 7:00 at night) turn immediately to the right, bend over, and discard something into the trash container. When the Defendant had previously discarded the lottery ticket on the sidewalk, this same officer that he did not know where the paper landed. Having thoroughly attacked the credibility of the police officer, Attorney Noonan obtained not guilty verdicts on all charges.

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan gets Not Guilty verdicts on felony drug charges with mandatory jail sentence.

HOME INVASION: DISMISSED

Defendant, and three other accomplices, was indicted for Home Invasion, Breaking & Entering (Person in Fear), Kidnapping, Assault & Battery, and Larceny from Building stemming from a daytime house break into a residence in Medford. Police were dispatched to a residence for a report of a home invasion. The alleged victim stated that one white female and three black males came into the home through the front door. He was thrown to the ground and beaten. He was punched in the face and head multiple times. He was choked to the point of almost losing consciousness. His hands were tied with an electrical cord. The invaders demanded to know where the money was. A written statement from one of the accomplices stated that the Defendant participated in the house break and was present inside the house during the invasion. Attorney Gerald J. Noonan filed a Motion to Dismiss the Home Invasion Indictment on the grounds that the Commonwealth failed to present sufficient evidence that the defendant was armed with a dangerous weapon prior to entry or that he knew of the existence of a dangerous weapon at the time of allegedly entering the house. An element of the offense requires proof that the defendant was armed with a dangerous weapon at the time of entry into a dwelling house. Commonwealth v. Ruiz, 426 Mass. 391 (1998). Judge agreed with Attorney Noonan that omission of proof on this element required dismissal of the Home Invasion indictment.

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan gets Home Invasions indictment dismissed, which carries up to 20 years in state prison.

INTENT TO DISTRIBUTE IN SCHOOL ZONE: AMENDED TO SIMPLE POSSESSION
DRUGS WITHIN SCHOOL ZONE: DISMISSED
INTENT TO DISTRIBUTE: DISMISSED

School officials received a tip from an anonymous person that the Defendant was seen smoking and passing around marijuana on school grounds. The Defendant voluntarily handed over to school official’s four individual bags of marijuana. A search of the Defendant’s school locker revealed three plastic bottles with burned holes and drug residue and a burnt joint.

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan gets felony drug charges with mandatory jail sentence dismissed against juvenile.

MALICIOUS DESTRUCTION of PROPERTY: DISMISSED
MALICIOUS DESTRUCTION of PROPERTY: DISMISSED
MALICIOUS DESTRUCTION of PROPERTY: DISMISSED

Defendant was alleged to have caused damage to the alleged victim’s motor vehicle on three separate occasions. On one occasion, Defendant was alleged to have lit the cover of the Defendant’s motor vehicle on fire. On the second occasion, Defendant was alleged to have dumped a pan of fried linguisa and onions on the motor vehicle. On the third occasion, the Defendant was alleged to have burned holes on the roof of the convertible. The total amount of all the damage was estimated to be in excess of $5,000. Attorney Gerald J. Noonan filed a Motion to Dismiss, which was allowed on October 10, 2006.

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan’s Motion to Dismiss was allowed and three felonies charges are dismissed.

ASSAULT & BATTERY: DISMISSED
WITNESS INTIMIDATION: DISMISSED

Brockton police were dispatched to the Good Samaritan Hospital for a domestic violence call. Upon arrival, the alleged victim reported to the police that the Defendant had grabbed her arm leaving bruises and finger imprints on her bicep and triceps areas. The Defendant continued arguing with the alleged victim throughout the home. The Defendant pushed the alleged victim into the closet door. Police observed damage to the closet door, which had been knocked off its tracks. The argument escalated into the basement where the defendant pushed the alleged victim over an end-table. Police photographs the injuries to the alleged victim, which included bruises and lacerations to the arms, neck, chest, and back. The alleged victim tried calling the police but the Defendant took the phone away and destroyed it. It took the alleged victim approximately 30 minutes to get away from the Defendant in order to contact the police.

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan gets serious domestic violence charges dismissed.

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.

OUI-LIQUOR: DISMISSED

Client, a senior at Stonehill College, was arrested and charged with Operating under the Influence of Liquor. On March 25, 2005, Bridgewater Police were dispatched for a report of a suspicious vehicle in a driveway. Upon arrival, Police observed the vehicle backing out of the driveway. Police followed the vehicle, which pulled forward and stopped. The officer approached the vehicle and knocked on the window. The officer asked the operator to turn down the radio but the operator turned off the ignition. The officer observed a strong odor of alcohol coming from the operator’s breath, that his speech was slurred, and that his eyes were glassy. Defendant could not locate his registration. The Defendant failed the alphabet test. The officer asked the Defendant to touch his left index finger to his nose but the Defendant bent over and touched his toes. The Defendant could not touch the tip of his nose with his index finger. Finally, the Defendant failed the nine-step walk and turn after several attempts. Attorney Gerald J. Noonan successfully dismissed the case and no criminal complaint issued against his client and Attorney Gerald J. Noonan obtained an order restoring the Defendant’s driver’s license.

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan gets OUI-Liquor charge dismissed against college student and his driver’s license restored.

ASSAULT & BATTERY: DISMISSED

The alleged victim reported to West Bridgewater Police that she had been over her mother’s house when her brother became verbally abusive toward her and physically picked her up and threw her against a wall causing her to sustain bruises on her body. In a prior incident, the Defendant had assaulted his mother and sister; breaking his mother’s toe and causing bruises to his sister’s back. The incident resulted in a violent struggle between police and the Defendant. Police interviewed two witnesses at the home during the assault.

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan gets domestic violence charge dismissed.

BREAKING & ENTERING FOR FELONY: DISMISSED
MALICIOUS DESTRUCTION OF PROPERTY: DISMISSED

Brockton Police were dispatched for a breaking and entering in progress. The caller reported that the suspect was throwing rocks at the windows and trying to break down the door. The caller gave a description and identified the suspect as being the Defendant who fled the scene and was later apprehended by police. Officers observed extensive damage to the home. The windows to the home were broken, the exterior door was broken, and the interior door was broken. Witnesses stated that the Defendant was attempting to break into the home to see whether his wife was having an affair with another man.

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan gets felony charges dismissed.

VIOLATION of 209A ORDER: DISMISSED

Defendant’s ex-wife had a restraining order against him. She went to see her son’s basketball game at Millis High School where she observed the Defendant. She motioned at the Defendant to leave the building but he refused. The restraining order prohibited the Defendant from having contact with his wife and to stay a certain distance away from his wife. In the event of incidental contact, the Defendant is legally required to promptly leave the scene. After the basketball game, the alleged victim went directly to the police station to report the violation. At a clerk-magistrate’s hearing, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan presented evidence that the Defendant was at the high school purchasing tickets for his common law wife and other children for an unrelated school event. Attorney Noonan presented a witness statement indicating that the Defendant was purchasing the tickets with his other children and that he immediately left the premises upon recognizing his ex-wife.

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan gets Violation of Restraining Order charge dismissed.

ACCESSORY AFTER THE FACT-MURDER: NOLLE PROSEQUI

During the night of December 8, 2001, William Angelesco went to the Squires Lounge in Revere and allegedly killed on Peter DeVito (a strip club manager) by shooting him in the head and abdomen with a semi-automatic pistol. Prosecutors alleged that William Angelesco shot Peter DeVito at close range inside the entrance of the crowded Squire’s Lounge in retaliation because Angelesco blamed Mr. DeVito for roughing him up and having him tossed out of Centerfolds strip club where DeVito had been the manager. Angelesco happened to run into DeVito at the Revere Club where he allegedly shot him with a 9mm pistol in front of more than 100 patrons. Prior to the alleged murder, Mr. Angelesco and the Defendant worked together running an illegal gambling operation, allegedly. The morning after the alleged murder, the Commonwealth alleged that Mr. Angelesco went to the Defendant’s home. The Commonwealth alleged that the Defendant assisted Mr. Angelesco in avoiding arrest by making his vehicle accessible to Mr. Angelesco. With the Defendant’s assistance, Mr. Angelesco was able to leave the Boston area and avoid capture. During Mr. Angelesco’s absence, Defendant allegedly provided spending money to Angelesco’s wife. The Commonwealth sought to have the Defendant testify against Mr. Angelesco at the Grand Jury but the Defendant refused on Fifth Amendment grounds. William Angelesco was charged with the murder of Peter DeVito and the Commonwealth sought to charge William Angelesco and the Defendant together. Attorney Gerald J. Noonan filed a Motion to Sever the Defendant’s case from William Angelesco’s case, which was allowed. Attorney Robert Sheketoff defended and successfully acquitted Mr. Angelesco of murder. Attorney Sheketoff established that there were conflicting eyewitness accounts of the shooter. Some witnesses described the shooter as having blond hair and one witness described the shooter as having a mustache when William Angelesco had black hair and was clean shaven. Some witnesses described the shooter as wearing a hood, some described him as wearing a skully cap, and some described him as wearing a baseball cap. Although Mr. Angelesco’s two cousins offered incriminating grand jury testimony against him, Attorney Sheketoff established that the witnesses had credibility problems – one of them having bipolar depression and the other having serious drug problems.

Result: After William Angelesco was acquitted of murder, the Commonwealth entered a Nolle Prosequi against the Defendant for being an accessory after the fact to murder.

OUI-LIQUOR: NOT GUILTY
NEGLIGENTY OPERATION: NOT GUILTY
LEAVING SCENE PROPERTY DAMAGE: NOT GUILTY

Easton Police responded to a hit-and-run accident. Stonehill students were traveling in a vehicle and attempted to make a left-hand turn into the campus entrance. Defendant’s vehicle attempted to pass the Stonehill vehicle on the left, as it was making the left-hand turn. Defendant’s vehicle smashed into the driver’s side of the Stonehill vehicle then fled the scene pulling into a parking lot approximately one-half mile down the road. The Stonehill student called 911 and gave the police the Defendant’s registration. An SUV traveling behind the Stonehill vehicle followed the Defendant’s vehicle to the parking lot. Upon arrival, officers observed two males attempting to change the front passenger side tire of the vehicle, which had been extensively damaged from a collision. Defendant admitted to police that he was the operator and that he had gotten into and accident and was changing the tire. After three requests, Defendant was able to produce his license and registration. Defendant admitted to having two beers at the Union Villa Bar. Defendant then changed is story by saying that he had been at Owen O’Leary’s and had two beers and a shot of Vodka. Defendant stated that he had been drinking “Bud” and then stated that he had been drinking “draft.” Officers detected an odor of alcohol coming from the Defendant’s breath. Officers observed that his eyes were glassy and bloodshot and that his speech was thick and slurred. After three attempts, Defendant failed the alphabet test. After two attempts, Defendant failed the one-legged stand. Lastly, Defendant failed the nine step walk-and-turn. An identified witness informed police that he observed one of the male’s throw a cooler over the wooden fence. A search of the backseat found ice and two cold Michelob beers. During the booking process, Defendant became argumentative and confrontational, which was captured on videotape. Attorney Gerald J. Noonan acquitted his client on all charges by arguing that the Commonwealth failed to sustain its burden of proof on an essential element of the crime; that the Defendant (and no one else) was the “operator” of the motor vehicle.

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan gets Not Guilty verdicts on all charges, including OUI-Liquor, against Navy man.

ATTEMPTED MURDER: NOLLE PROSEQUI
ASSAULT with INTENT TO MURDER: NOLLE PROSEQUI
ASSAULT & BATTERY WITH DANGEROUS WEAPON PROBATION
CARRYING A DANGEROUS WEAPON: PROBATION
ASSAULT WITH A DANGEROUS WEAPON: NOLLE PROSEQUI
ASSAULT AND BATTERY: NOLLE PROSEQUI

On July 12, 2003, Massachusetts State Police and Quincy Police were dispatched to a fight in progress involving knives and guns on Quincy Shore Drive in Quincy. Quincy Police immediately called for an ambulance for at least one stabbing victim. The victim had been stabbed in the stomach and stabbed at least six times in the back. Several witness (with identical accounts) told police that they actually witnessed the assault and stabbing. Once witness observed the subject pull out a knife and “flick” it open. The witnesses stated that the victim was walking along the sea wall when a group of black males approached and words were exchanged. Witnesses stated that a tall black male wearing a red t-shirt took something from his pocket, flick it open, and quickly advanced on the victim. This black male had the victim in a “bear hug” over the sea wall and the witnesses observed the black male stabbing the victim in the back and they could clearly see the handle of the knife. The victim yelled that he had been stabbed. Two other black males (one wearing a Rams football jersey and the other wearing a blue shirt and a black cap) held back the victim’s friends allowing the suspect to flee the scene. The three black males were detained at the Clam Shop. All seven witnesses provided written statements. The victim told police that the tall black male in the red t-shirt stabbed him several times in the back and once in the stomach. Police spoke with Attorney Gerald J. Noonan’s client at the Clam Shop. The client was described as a black male, tall, wearing a red t-shirt, and he had been covered with blood and police recovered a knife on his person. The second black party had a silver box-cutter and a bottle of Brandy on his person. The third black male also had a bottle of Brandy on his person. Photographs were taken of all three black suspects. In addition, the victim’s friends identified the Defendant as the party stabbing the victim and fleeing the scene. The victim identified the Defendant as the person who stabbed him. The victim testified before the Grand Jury that the Defendant stabbed him once in the stomach and six times in the back. Before the Grand Jury, the victim lifted his shirt and showed the jurors one stab wound to the stomach and six stab wounds to his back. The District Attorney was requesting that the Defendant serve a minimum of two years in prison.

Attorney Gerald J. Noonan retained a medical doctor to review the victim’s medical records. The medical doctor noted that there was no mention in the medical records as to the depth of the wounds sustained by the victim. Based upon his review of the medical records, the doctor found that the wounds did not penetrate any further than skin level. The doctor found that the wounds were superficial in nature and not viewed as serious by the medical staff. The victim was discharged from the hospital within 12 hours of admission showing that the medical staff was not concerned of the chance of any underlying serious injury. The doctor reviewed photographs of the injuries and described the wounds as “scratches.” The doctor opined that the victim’s injuries were actually consistent with the Defendant using the knife in self-defense against a violent aggressor. In addition, the doctor observed that the toxicology tests of the victim showed an elevated alcohol level. A copy of the medical doctor’s written report of his review of the victim’s medical records was provided to the Commonwealth.

Attorney Gerald J. Noonan retained a private investigator to interview a member of the Defendant’s party that was involved in the incident. This witness stated his party and the alleged victim’s party passed each other on the sea wall. This witness stated that as the groups passed each other the alleged victim threw his shoulder and hit the witness. The witness was pretty mad and said to the alleged victim, “What’s your fucking problem?” At that point, the alleged victim began swearing, making a scene, and putting his hands up into a fighting position. The witnesses group had already been walking down the sea wall when they heard the alleged victim swearing at the witness and making a scene. They stopped and turned around when they heard the alleged victim swearing at the witness. The witness stated that he smelled alcohol on the victim and thought he was either drunk or on drugs because he was out of control. The witness stated that the victim took off his shirt, threw it on the sidewalk, and was screaming that he wanted to fight. At this point, the Defendant stepped toward the alleged victim. During this time, the alleged victim raised his hands in a fighting position and said “let’s fight” or “let’s get it on.” The witness stated that the Defendant didn’t say a word until the alleged victim said to him, “Niggers want to fight too. I’ll fight all your nigger friends.” At this point, the witness’s group began yelling back at the alleged victim. The alleged victim then called the witness “a nigger lover.” The alleged victim called the Defendant a “nigger,” got in his face, and threw the first punch, swinging at the Defendant. The alleged victim got the Defendant in a headlock and began punching him in the head numerous times. During the fight, the alleged victim placed the Defendant in a chokehold. After the struggle, the witness heard the alleged victim say, “Nigger stabbed me.” The alleged victim then walked away with his friends unassisted and did not appear to be hurt or injured. The Defendant had a gash on his arm from hitting the sea wall during the struggle. As they left and walked away, the witness observed approximately 25-30 kids being led by the alleged victim walking down the sidewalk toward them and the alleged victim was calling them “Niggers.” The alleged victim’s group was armed with weapons, bats, sticks, pipes, 2×4’s, etc. At this point, the Defendant’s group fled. Once the police came, the alleged victim’s group dispersed and ran away. The witness claimed that the alleged victim was the aggressor, he was out of control, he was intoxicated, he was calling everyone “niggers,” he threw the first punch and placed the Defendant in a chokehold and that the Defendant was acting in self-defense. There were also two other female witnesses who could corroborate this version of events.

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan was able to get the District Attorney’s Office to Nolle Pross 4 of the 6 indictments. With respect to Indictment #3, Defendant was found Guilty and sentenced to two years in the house of correction suspended for three years and with respect to Indictment #4 the judge sentenced him to three years straight probation. The Commonwealth was pushing for two years committed time and Attorney Gerald J. Noonan was able to secure a strictly probationary sentence for his client on very serious charges.

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.

ASSAULT & BATTERY w/ DANGEROUS WEAPON: NOT GUILTY

On May 7, 1999, there was a large party in the woods behind the MSPCA in Brockton. There were many youths drinking and partying in the woods. There were approximately 80 people in attendance at the party. The alleged victim, a party goer, told police that he was beat up and “stomped on” in the woods at the party. The alleged victim told police that he was kicked and punched several times. The alleged victim provided the names of his attackers, including the Defendant’s name. The beating was vicious, violent, and severe. The alleged victim’s eye was permanently disfigured in the attack. Several of the co-defendants were charged with Mayhem, as there was evidence that the alleged victim’s eye was “put out or destroyed.” Records showed that the alleged victim’s vision, after the assault, was substantially reduced. The alleged victim identified the Defendant to police as one of the people kicking him while he was on the ground.

Attorney Gerald J. Noonan located many eyewitnesses to the attack in the woods. One eyewitness stated that she observed three people beating the alleged victim and kicking him while he was on the ground. This eyewitness did not see the Defendant beating, punching, or kicking the alleged victim. Another eyewitness stated that he observed several people beating the alleged victim. This eyewitness did not see the Defendant beating, punching or kicking the Defendant. Attorney Noonan interviewed 4 other witnesses who provided exculpatory information. Attorney Noonan obtained records showing that the alleged victim’s eyesight, without glasses, was extremely poor, which affected his ability to positively identify the Defendant as one of his attackers.

Attorney Gerald J. Noonan discovered information that the alleged victim was in possession of a knife and that he purportedly used the knife during the altercation. Attorney Gerald J. Noonan also discovered a taped telephone call in which the alleged victim recanted his statement to police. At trial, Attorney Noonan severed his client’s case from the three other co-defendants’ cases, as a joint trial of all four defendants would prejudice his client. Attorney Noonan’s client was a full-time student at the Massachusetts Maritime Academy and had no prior criminal record.

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan gets Not Guilty verdict on violent felony charge against Mass. Maritime Academy student with no criminal record.

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.

UNLAWFUL DISTRIBUTION OF COCAINE: NOT GUILTY
DISTRIBUTION OF COCAINE IN SCHOOL ZONE: NOT GUILTY

An undercover State Trooper approached the Defendant in front of 96 West Elm Street in Brockton at approximately 11:18 p.m. The Trooper asked the Defendant if he was “pumping” (e.g., selling cocaine) and the Defendant answered in the affirmative. Defendant instructed the Trooper to drive around the block because there were police in the area. The undercover Trooper and another undercover officer circled the block and returned to 96 West Elm Street. Defendant approached the passenger side of the undercover Trooper’s vehicle and sold him a $20 hit of cocaine with a second undercover officer in the vehicle. The Defendant was with a black female. A third officer stated that the Defendant and the black female were in the vicinity of 96 West Elm Street before the drug deal. After the transaction, the undercover Trooper radioed to backup that the sale was complete and he gave a description of the Defendant to the officers on the radio. The undercover officer also gave a description of a black female that was with the Defendant. Within seconds, two Brockton Police cruisers arrived on the scene and arrested the Defendant and the black female believing they matched the description given over the radio. The undercover Trooper (who engaged in the drug transaction) drove by 96 West Elm Street and observed the Defendant and the black female being detained. The undercover Trooper positively identified the Defendant as the person who sold him the cocaine. The second officer involved in the drug sale positively identified the Defendant and testified that he got a good look at the Defendant before the drug deal, during the drug deal, and after the drug deal.

At trial, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan challenged the officers’ identification of the Defendant as the person who sold the drugs to the undercover officer. After the drug deal, police went into 96 West Elm Street and detained the Defendant and the black female who they believed matched the description given by the undercover Trooper on the radio. Attorney Gerald J. Noonan argued that the police apprehended the wrong man. After the drug deal, police went inside 96 West elm Street. The police brought the Defendant out of 96 West Elm Street and brought him out to the street where they detained him. The two officers in the drug sale testified that they positively identified the Defendant, as he was standing on the sidewalk being detained by other officers. Attorney Noonan challenged the identification by the two officers. Specifically, Attorney Noonan established that the two officers made their identification of the Defendant, as they were driving their unmarked cruiser by 96 West Elm Street. Attorney Noonan challenged the accuracy of their identification – as they made the identification from a moving car at 11:18 p.m. at night. The two officers did not stop, get out of the vehicle, approach the Defendant and make an up-close identification of him. Attorney Noonan argued that the police brought the wrong man out of 96 West Elm Street and that he was wrongly identified as the drug dealer by police.

Result: After a jury trial in which Attorney Gerald J. Noonan asserted the defense of wrongful identification, a jury returned verdicts of Not Guilty on all indictments, which included felony drug offenses carrying significant jail time.

ARMED ASSAULT TO ROB: NOT GUILTY
ASSAULT & BATTERY w/ DANGEROUS WEAPON: NOT GUILTY

Defendant was charged with two other men under a theory of joint venture in a shooting. The victim testified that he was shot three times and a bullet still remains lodged in his back. The victim testified that he was robbed by knifepoint while making a phone call in the Westgate mall when a male grabbed his watch and ran. Afterwards, the victim went with his girlfriend to the market on Court Street. The victim observed a red jeep pull up. The victim saw a man standing 2-3 feet away from him holding a short black gun in his hand. The gunman demanded the victim’s gold chain but the victim refused. The gunman then handed the black gun to the Defendant. The victim tried to walk away when he heard shots and fell down and there was blood all over him. The victim felt he was going to die on the street. The victim was shot in the arm and in the back. The bullet was still lodged in his back. The victim was hospitalized for a month. Attorney Gerald J. Noonan examined a police officer at trial who interviewed the victim. Attorney Noonan asked Officer Carr, “Jusme (victim) told you Therilus never shot him, or threatened him.” The officer answered, “Yes.” The defense attorneys for the three defendants presented evidence from the Westgate mall showing that there were no records or videotape footage showing that the victim was robbed at the mall, as he claimed. Attorney Gerald J. Noonan presented evidence from the emergency room showing that the cause of the victim’s injuries was the result of a drive-by shooting, which contradicted the victim’s testimony that he was shot at close range outside the market.

• “Victim testifies about being shot 3 times at close range.”
• “Jury to begin deliberations in Brockton shooting trial.”
• “Jury acquits three in shooting of Brockton man outside market.

ASSAULT by DANGEROUS WEAPON: NOT GUILTY
ATTEMPT TO COMMIT A CRIME: NOT GUILTY

An Easton Police Officer was flagged down by a motorist in the parking lot of Christy’s Market. The motorist reported to the police officer that the driver of the vehicle behind her just threatened her with a machete knife. The officer obtained the license plate. The woman identified the Defendant as the man who threatened her with the machete. The woman claimed that she had just left the Taunton District Court after taking out charges against the Defendant for Annoying and Harassing Telephone Calls. She stated that when she was driving home she looked in her rear-view mirror and saw the Defendant traveling behind her. She stated that she observed the Defendant pointing the knife at her and motioning for her to pull over. She states that the Defendant then put the knife to his throat. She claimed that the Defendant was throwing rocks at her vehicle. She states that her vehicle was almost forced off the road by the Defendant. She then pulled into the party lot of Christy’s Market and flagged down the officer. The police stopped the Defendant’s vehicle and asked him to produce the knife. Defendant produced a fishing knife. Defendant denied threatening her with the knife. The Defendant explained to the officer that he had attempted to get a restraining order against the alleged victim because she has been harassing him. He stated that the alleged victim knows he has he has a knife. The police seized the knife from the Defendant’s vehicle.

Result: After a three-day jury trial, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan gets Not Guilty verdicts on all criminal charges against Firefighter.

Client was involved in a motor vehicle accident and sustained full thickness tears to the left and right rotator cuff, which required surgery. The insurance company made an initial offer of $99,000.00.

Case Results: Suit was filed and Attorney Brendan J. Noonan ultimately settled for $225,000.

LARCENY CHARGE AGAINST CANTON MAN FOR STEALING $35,000 FROM HIS EMPLOYER ARE DISMISSED AT TRIAL, AS ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN ARGUED THAT THE COMMONWEALTH COULD NOT PROVE WHO HAD STOLEN THE MONEY

Defendant worked for a business in Stoughton. It was alleged that the Defendant took manual checks issued to fictitious employees and physically deposited those checks into a bank account. It was further alleged that the Defendant took checks issued to fictitious employees and electronically deposited them into a bank account. The Commonwealth intended to call the Regional Director of the business who discovered the fraudulent transactions and conducted his own investigation which, in his opinion, concluded that the Defendant had stolen the funds. The Regional Director’s investigation claimed that the Defendant had stolen approximately $35,000 from the employer. Defendant was alleged to have stolen $20,000 from a past employer but he was found not guilty of those charges. The Defendant had 24 entries on his criminal record.

Result: At trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan was prepared to argue that the Commonwealth could not prove its case because they failed to subpoena the bank records where the stolen checks had been deposited into. Without the bank records, the Commonwealth could not prove whose bank account the stolen funds were sent – or if the stolen funds were deposited into the Defendant’s bank account. The Commonwealth did not obtain any surveillance video from the bank showing the person who was depositing the checks. Moreover, the employer did not produce any video footage of the Defendant taking the stolen the checks and leaving the store with them. The District Attorney’s Office was prepared to request another trial date, so they could subpoena the bank records. However, Attorney Noonan brokered a deal where the Commonwealth would dismiss the charge upon his client’s payment of $10,000 in restitution. The client paid the restitution and the charge was dismissed.