Patrick J. Noonan (Recent Cases)

DOMESTIC ASSAULT & BATTERY CHARGE AGAINST ELECTRICIAN FROM STOUGHTON DISMISSED AT TRIAL FOR LACK OF EVIDENCE

The client, an electrician from Stoughton, was arrested and charged with Assault & Battery on a Family or Household Member (G.L. c. 265, §13M) stemming from an incident with the mother of his child. The client was operating his vehicle. The child’s mother was in the passenger seat and his two year-old daughter in the backseat. An argument ensued where the child’s mother began to attack and punch the client, as he was driving the car. He pulled over and the child’s mother kicked him out of the car and drove off with the daughter in the backseat. The client, left abandoned on the street, called 911 to report that he had been assaulted and kicked out of his car. He was concerned about the safety of his child. The police went to the residence of the child’s mother and she told the police that the Defendant grabbed and twisted her hand during the car ride. Based on statement of the child’s mother, police arrested the Defendant.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan marked the case for trial and advised the prosecutor that the Defendant was the victim of the attack. Attorney Noonan explained that the child’s mother would incriminate herself were she to testify against the Defendant at his trial. She had a Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination for physically assaulting the client, kicking him out of the car, and taking off with their daughter. Attorney Noonan explained that, without the testimony of the child’s mother, there was insufficient evidence to bring the case to trial. For example, the child’s mother did not call 911; the child’s mother did not have any physical injuries to corroborate her claim that the Defendant twisted her hand; there were no photographs of her hand to show any physical injuries; she did not seek any medical attention; she was not upset or emotional in speaking to police, and the Defendant never admitted to physically touching her (in fact, as evidenced from his 911 call, Defendant was adamant that he was the victim of an assault). On the day of trial, the Commonwealth dismissed the case.

2^ND OFFENSE OUI: REDUCED TO 1^ST OFFENSE OUI

Defendant was convicted of Operating under the Influence of Alcohol (OUI) in 2012 in the Taunton District Court. In 2017, Defendant was charged with OUI (second offense) arising out of an arrest in West Bridgewater. In the new OUI, Defendant had a blood-alcohol-content of 0.27%, which is three times over the legal limit of 0.08%. On the scene, Defendant was described as “legless” and officers have to physically assist him into the police cruiser and they had to physically assist him into the police station. The booking process was videotaped and the Defendant was obviously intoxicated. He admitted to being an alcoholic and taking prescribed medication to treat his alcohol addiction.

Result: A second-offense OUI may be reduced to a first-offense OUI if the first-offense OUI occurred more than 10 years ago; this is known as a Cahill disposition, Commonwealth v. Cahill, 442 Mass. 127 (2004). In this case, the Defendant did not qualify, technically, for a Cahill disposition because his first-offense OUI did not occur more than 10 years ago. In fact, the first-offense OUI occurred approximately five years ago. Even though the Defendant did not technically qualify for a Cahill disposition, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan convinced the judge to reduce the second-offense OUI down to a first-offense OUI and the Judge imposed a first-offense OUI sentence instead of a second-offense sentence. With a second-offense OUI, a Defendant faces more severe penalties. In this case, Defendant received the benefit of a first-offense sentence.

INDECENT EXPOSURE:               SEALED

OUI-LIQUOR:                                 SEALED

NEGLIGENT OPERATION:         SEALED

Defendant, a 66 year-old real estate agent, contacted Attorney Patrick J. Noonan because he was encountering difficulties obtaining employment due to criminal offenses on his record, including Indecent Exposure (G.L. c. 272, §53), Operating under the Influence of Liquor (G.L. c. 90, §24), and Operating to Endanger (G.L. c. 90, §24(2)(a)).  After contacting Attorney Patrick J. Noonan, all charges on his criminal record were sealed within 30 days.

AFTER A TWO-DAY JURY TRIAL, ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN WINS NOT GUILTY VERDICTS FOR OPERATING UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF LIQUOR (THIRD OFFENSE) AND NEGLIGENT OPERATION

Defendant, a construction worker from Hanover, was arrested by Massachusetts State Police and charged with OUI-Liquor (third offense), see G.L. c. 90, §24. A third-offense OUI is a felony, which carries a minimum mandatory jail sentence of six-months and an 8-year suspension of driver’s license. State Police received a call from an off-duty police officer who reported that the Defendant was driving erratically on Route 3 in Rockland. Based on that report, State Troopers stopped the Defendant’s vehicle on Route 3. The Trooper approached the Defendant and noticed that the Defendant’s eyes were red, bloodshot and glassy. The Trooper observed an odor of alcohol on the Defendant’s breath. The Trooper asked the Defendant if he had consumed alcohol and the Defendant stated that he consumed a few nips about an hour prior. Troopers searched the Defendant’s vehicle and found six empty nip bottles. The Trooper administered two field sobriety tests, the One-Leg Stand and the Nine-Step Walk and Turn, which, in the Trooper’s opinion, the Defendant failed. During the booking process at the police station, the Defendant fell asleep. The Trooper had to shout the Defendant’s name several times and had to physically jostle the Defendant in order to wake him up.

Result: After a jury trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan won not guilty verdicts on all charges. At trial, Attorney Noonan was able to exclude certain testimony related to the off-duty police officer’s observations of the Defendant’s so-called erratic operation on Route 3. Attorney Noonan introduced the Defendant’s booking photo and the Defendant’s driver’s license photo to show that the Defendant did not have red, bloodshot, and glassy eyes, as the Trooper claimed. Attorney Noonan pointed out that the police did not identify any nip bottles in the vehicle when they conducted an inventory search of property in the Defendant’s vehicle. Troopers did not photograph or seize the nip bottles as evidence. For the field sobriety tests, Attorney Noonan pointed out that the Defendant satisfactorily performed the Nine-Step Walk and Turn with some minor errors. The vehicle stop occurred in the evening, after the Defendant had worked a full-day in construction and he was wearing work boots during his sobriety tests. The Defendant’s drowsiness during booking could be explained by the fact that he worked a full-day in construction and was tired as a result. Lastly, Attorney Noonan highlighted a huge inconsistency in the prosecution’s case. During her opening statement, the prosecutor argued that the jury would hear evidence that the Defendant admitted to consuming “three nips,” which turned out to be inaccurate.

MANSLAUGHER:               NOT GUILTY

In 2015, Defendant was charged with Manslaughter (G.L. c. 265, §13) for allegedly selling heroin to a middle-man, the middle-man distributed the heroin to a victim, and the victim consumed the heroin and died of a drug overdose. Manslaughter requires proof that the Defendant’s act of selling heroin was wanton and reckless and that his act of selling heroin was the cause of the victim’s death. At this time in 2015, there was case law and precedent in Massachusetts finding that a Defendant’s sale of heroin was wanton and reckless so as to support a charge of Manslaughter.  In 2016, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan filed a Motion to Dismiss arguing that the Defendant’s act of selling heroin to a middle-man was not wanton and reckless and was insufficient to support the Manslaughter charge. Attorney Noonan argued that the case law in the Commonwealth was outdated. In his Motion to Dismiss, Attorney Noonan argued that there is no per se rule finding that the sale of heroin, by itself, was sufficient to convict a Defendant of Manslaughter. Attorney Noonan argued that the Commonwealth must present evidence, in addition to the sale of heroin, to establish wanton and reckless conduct, such as: the potency of the heroin, the quantity of the heroin, and the Defendant’s knowledge regarding the victim (such as the victim’s prior drug use, prior overdoses, vulnerability, etc.) In his Motion to Dismiss, Attorney Noonan argued that there was insufficient evidence to support the Manslaughter charge because: the potency of the heroin was weak; the heroin was not laced with any other substances increasing the risk of overdose; the quantity of the heroin was small (consistent with personal use); and the Defendant did not even know the victim and did not sell directly to the victim. The Motion to Dismiss was denied.

At trial, Defendant was represented by Attorney Patrick J. Noonan and Brendan J. Noonan. At the close of the Commonwealth’s case, Attorney Noonan filed a Motion for Required Finding of Not Guilty; echoing the arguments that were raised in his pretrial Motion to Dismiss and applying the facts presented at trial. In his Motion for Required Finding of Not Guilty, Attorney Noonan argued that the Commonwealth merely presented evidence that the Defendant sold heroin which, by itself, was not sufficient to convict him of Manslaughter. First, Attorney Noonan pointed out that the heroin was of low-strength.  In particular, the heroin was only 24% pure and weaker than the average dose of heroin on the street. A DEA Chemist testified at trial that the average street level strength of heroin is between 20% – 60%, placing the Defendant’s heroin at the weak end of the spectrum. Second, Attorney Noonan argued that the heroin was not laced with any other substances, such as Fentanyl, which would increase the risk of an overdose. Third, Attorney Noonan argued that the Defendant sold a small quantity of heroin consistent with personal use. Fourth, Attorney Noonan argued that the Defendant did not even know the victim and did not sell the heroin directly to her but instead sold the heroin to a middle-man. The trial judge denied Attorney Noonan’s Motion for Required Finding of Not Guilty and the Defendant was convicted of Manslaughter on April 6, 2018.

While the Defendant’s appeal was pending, there was a similar appeal pending before the Supreme Judicial Court where a Defendant had been convicted of Manslaughter for selling heroin to the victim. In this related appeal, (Commonwealth v. Jesse Carrillo), the Defendant (Carrillo) was raising the same arguments that the Noonan’s raised in their pretrial Motion to Dismiss and in their Motion for Required Finding of Not Guilty at trial. The Defendant’s appeal was stayed (or put on hold) until the SJC made a decision in Carrillo. On October 3, 2019, the SJC in Carrillo held that: As an issue of first impression, evidence that the Defendant transferred heroin to the victim, without more, was insufficient to support a Manslaughter conviction. Given the SJC’s new decision, it was clear that the Defendant’s conviction should be overturned. The Defendant sought a highly skilled appellate attorney who fought hard on his behalf. Following the SJC’s decision in Carrillo, Defendant’s appellate attorney renewed Attorney Noonan’s Motion for Required Finding of Not Guilty. The District Attorney’s Office assented to (or agreed) to the Renewed Motion for Required Finding of Not Guilty and the Trial Judge entered a finding of Not Guilty.

CLIENT’S LICENSE TO CARRY FIREARMS WAS SUSPENDED DUE TO AN INCIDENT WHERE HIS TEENAGE SON ACCESSED HIS FIREARM FROM AN UNLOCKED SAFE AND POSTED VIDEOS OF HIMSELF AND THE GUN ON SOCIAL MEDIA BUT ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN CONVINCES THE POLICE DEPARTMENT TO REINDTATE HIS LTC

Client, a Brockton resident, is a 54 year-old engineer and real estate agent with no criminal record whatsoever. The client and his wife (a certified nursing assistant) emigrated from Haiti and built a great life for their family in the United States. The police department suspended the client’s LTC due to an incident where his teenage son accessed his firearm from an unlocked safe and posted videos of himself posing with the gun on social media. The videos on social media were reported to the son’s school who, in turn, contacted the police department. As a result of this incident, the police department suspended the client’s License to Carry Firearms (LTC).

Result: The client contacted Attorney Patrick J. Noonan in an effort to persuade the police department to reinstate his LTC. The firearms licensing officer told Attorney Noonan that the client was extremely remorseful for the incident and took full responsibility for the incident. The firearms licensing officer was open to considering an LTC reinstatement based, in large part, on the client’s truthfulness about the incident and his genuine remorse for what happened. Attorney Noonan presented evidence that his client made a poor mistake but something like this would never happen again. He left the unloaded firearm out of his sight for only a few minutes, which resulted in this incident. The client immediately completed a course in firearm’s safety. The main reason why the officer was willing to entertain a potential reinstatement was the client’s genuineness and truthfulness in speaking with police about the incident, his sincere expression of remorse, and his willingness to correct the mistake. After negotiations, the client’s LTC was reinstated.

CLIENT’S LICENSE TO CARRY FIREARMS WAS SUSPENDED DUE TO A SHOPLIFTING ARREST BUT ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN CONVINCES THE POLICE DEPARTMENT TO REINSTATE HIS LTC.

Client obtained a License to Carry Firearms (LTC) for his job as an armed security guard where he provided armed security for federal buildings in Boston. Client was arrested for shoplifting from the Lord & Taylor department store in the Braintree Mall. As a result of his arrest, the client’s license to carry firearms (LTC) was suspended by the police department finding him to be an “unsuitable” person to possess an LTC and firearms. Due to the suspension of his LTC, the client lost his job in armed security. The client contacted Attorney Patrick J. Noonan to have his LTC reinstated.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan contacted the Police Department who suspended the client’s LTC. Attorney Noonan argued that his client’s LTC should be reinstated because the basis for the suspension (the shoplifting arrest) was dismissed. Even if a criminal charge is dismissed, the police department may still suspend an applicant’s LTC if the police department determines that the applicant is “unsuitable” to possess an LTC. Attorney Noonan presented evidence that the client was a “suitable person” and that his shoplifting arrest was a stupid mistake. The client earned an Associate’s Degree in Nursing and graduated with high honors. Attorney Noonan presented letters from the client’s co-workers in armed security attesting to his character and suitability. After the shoplifting case was dismissed, the client got a job as a health care provider at a residential facility treating of people with mental illness. The client received an award for providing life-saving assistance to a patient suffering from a medical emergency. Since the suspension, the client satisfactorily completed a firearm’s safety course. In sum, although the client was deemed to be unsuitable for his shoplifting arrest, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan presented evidence of his client’s suitability and the police department changed its mind and reinstated the LTC.

IN A CASE FEATURED ON THE NEWS, THE NOONAN DEFENSE TEAM WINS DISMISSAL OF CHARGES AGAINST BROCKTON MAN ACCUSED OF BEATING AN ELDERLY MAN AFTER A ROAD RAGE INCIDENT

The Defendant is a Brockton man with no criminal record. He has never been in trouble before. On January 2, 2019, Defendant was at a stop light in Easton. According to police, Defendant attempted to pass another vehicle when the two cars hit one another. The other driver, however, did not pull over so the Defendant followed him. The other driver eventually pulled into the parking lot of a bank. A verbal argument ensued. Defendant was accused of punching the elderly man in the face several times. Photographs were taken showing lacerations and bleeding to the alleged victim’s face. Defendant was arrested by Easton Police and charged with the felony offense Assault & Battery on Elderly or Disabled Person pursuant to G.L. c. 265, §13K. On the second trial date, all charges against our client were dismissed.

“Man Accused of Punching 71-Year-old After Road Rage Incident in Easton.” https://boston.cbslocal.com/2019/01/03/road-rage-brockton-man-assault-71-year-old-man-easton-police-arraignment/

“Police: Brockton man beats senior citizen in Easton road rage attack.” https://www.enterprisenews.com/news/20190103/police-brockton-man-beats-senior-citizen-in-easton-road-rage-attack

CRIMINAL CHARGE AGAINST TAUNTON MAN FOR RECKLESSLY CAUSING A CAR ACCIDENT IS DISMISSED AT CLERK’S HEARING

Raynham Police were dispatched to the scene of a two-vehicle car accident. On the scene, police spoke to the Defendant who stated that the vehicle traveling in front of him gave him a “brake job,” e.g., applying the brakes as the Defendant was traveling behind him. Defendant admitted that he accelerated and passed the other vehicle and, while the Defendant was traveling in front of the other vehicle, the Defendant reciprocated by giving that vehicle a “brake job.” However, the other vehicle crashed into the rear of the Defendant’s vehicle as a result of the Defendant’s “brake job,” causing significant front end damage to the other vehicle. The other driver told the police that the Defendant recklessly passed him and “locked up his brakes” causing the crash. Based on the Defendant’s incriminating statements and the significant vehicle damage, the police filed an application for criminal complaint against the Defendant for Negligent Operation of a Motor Vehicle (G.L. c. 90, §24(2)(a)).

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan secured a Clerk-Magistrate Hearing on the criminal complaint giving his client an opportunity to save himself from having a criminal record before a decision was made to issue formal criminal charges. In preparation for the hearing, Attorney Noonan had his client complete a safe driving course. Attorney Noonan presented evidence showing that the victim’s motor vehicle damage had been paid for by insurance. Attorney Noonan presented evidence showing his client’s good character, including a character letter from the Defendant’s employer where the Defendant had worked for six-years. Attorney Noonan argued that his client made a foolish mistake but took responsibility for his actions. At the conclusion of the Clerk-Magistrate Hearing, no criminal complaint issued against the client and the client has no criminal record as a result of this incident.

MBTA WORKER’S LICENSE TO CARRY FIREARMS WAS SUSPENDED AFTER CRIMINAL CHARGES FOR UNLAWFULLY CARRYING A FIREARM OUTSIDE HIS RESTRICTION BUT ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN GETS HIS LTC REINSTATED

The client has a License to Carry Firearms (“LTC”) with a restriction for target shooting purposes only. The client was criminally charged in Boston with unlawfully carrying a firearm outside his target shooting restriction. At 2:41 a.m., Boston Police were patrolling a high crime area, which had been the scene of recent shootings. Officers were suspicious that the Defendant’s vehicle and another vehicle were parked in close proximity to each other (in this high-crime area) and the vehicles took off in separate directions. Officers followed the Defendant’s vehicle and their suspicious increased because the vehicle’s windows were tinted and the license plate was obstructed by some plastic covering. Officers stopped the Defendant’s vehicle and asked him if he had a firearm in his possession. Defendant was truthful and stated that he had a firearm underneath his seat. His LTC was restricted to target shooting only and the police felt that the Defendant had possessed the firearm outside his restriction and charged him criminally. Following the criminal charge, the client’s LTC was suspended.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan successfully petitioned the Police Department to reinstate his client’s LTC for the following reasons: First, the criminal charge was dismissed at a Clerk-Magistrate’s Hearing. He was only issued warnings for the civil infractions for the tinted windows and license plate obstruction. Second, Attorney Noonan presented evidence that his client was in that specific area in Boston because he was visiting his grandmother. The client was not doing anything suspicious. Third, the client had gone target shooting that day at the Braintree Rifle and Pistol Club with co-workers of the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority. Fourth, Attorney Noonan presented strong character evidence. The client had no criminal record. He has been gainfully employed by the MBTA for six years. Several respectable members of the community offered letters attesting to the client’s character. Finally, the client completed a firearm’s safety course. After reviewing the totality of the evidence, the police department reinstated the client’s license to carry firearms.

ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN GETS 209A RESTRAINING ORDER AGAINST BROCKTON MAN, ACCUSED OF INAPPROPRIATE CONDUCT WITH A MINOR, TERMINATED.

The Plaintiff brought a 209A Abuse Prevention Restraining Order against the Defendant on behalf of his sixteen year-old daughter pursuant to G.L. c. 209A. Defendant resided on the first-floor of a multi-family home in Brockton. The Plaintiff resided on the second-floor with his two daughters who were minors. The Plaintiff-Father alleged that the Defendant engaged in some inappropriate behavior with his two minor daughters. The father alleged that the Defendant was giving money to his daughters for some inappropriate purpose, but the daughters refused to tell their father why the Defendant had given them the money, or if there was any inappropriate behavior. The father believed that something inappropriate happened with his daughters, but he didn’t know what.

Result: At the hearing, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan cross-examined the father who admitted that he was unsure about the Defendant’s alleged misconduct because his daughters did not make actual disclosures to him. After some questioning, the father agreed to withdraw his request for a restraining order. The restraining order has been vacated.

RESTRAINING ORDER AGAINST DEFENDANT TERMINATED DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE DEFENDANT HAD BEEN CHARGED WITH COMMITTING VIOLENT OFFENSES AGAINST THE PLAINTIFF, INCLUDING CRIMINAL CHARGES FOR VIOLATING THE RESTRAINING ORDER ON THREE DIFFERENT OCCASIONS.

The Plaintiff is the former girlfriend of the Defendant. Defendant was charged with many serious crimes against his ex-girlfriend, including Stalking (G.L. c. 265, § 43), Assault & Battery with a Dangerous Weapon (G.L. c. 265, § 15A), and Assault & Battery (G.L. c. 265, §13A). The Plaintiff provided police with a cell phone video showing that the Defendant had jumped on her car, gained access to the inside of her car, and began driving her car, while the Plaintiff was seated in the passenger seat screaming out in fear. She provided police with photographs of injuries to her arm that were inflicted by the Defendant. She told police that she broke up with the Defendant but he continually stalked her. When the Defendant was arraigned on those criminal charges, the girlfriend obtained a 209A Abuse Prevention Restraining Order against the Defendant, which ordered him to stay away from her, not contact her, and not abuse her. While the Restraining Order was in effect, the Defendant violated the restraining order because he had contacted the girlfriend several times and showed up to her workplace. As a result of the violations, Defendant was criminally charged with three-counts of Violation of an Abuse Prevention Order (G.L. c. 209, §7).

Result: A hearing was scheduled on the Plaintiff’s request to extend the restraining order against the Defendant. The Plaintiff had a very good chance of prevailing in her request to extend the restraining order because the Defendant was currently charged with a multitude of violent crimes against her, and he had violated the restraining order three different times. Defendant hired Attorney Patrick J. Noonan to represent him on the criminal charges. Attorney Noonan is aggressively defending him on the criminal charges, he filed a Motion to Dismiss the Stalking charge, he has retained an expert witness, he has conducted his own investigation into the allegations, and he has been pressing for more evidence. The Plaintiff obtained an temporary extension of the 209A Order with the Court by telephone, but Attorney Noonan demanded an evidentiary hearing on her request to extend the restraining order. The Plaintiff had shown all indications that she would be pursuing an extension of the restraining order. She has been heavily involved in the Defendant’s prosecution, provided police with evidence of his crimes, including videos, photos, e-mails, and text messages. It was expected that she would appear at the hearing to request an extension of the Order, but she did not appear and the Order was vacated.

AFTER HEARING, JUDGE ALLOWS ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN’S MOTION TO DISMISS TRESPASSING CHARGE BASED ON EVIDENCE PRESENTED BY THE DEFENSE THAT THE DEFENDANT HAD LAWFUL AUTHORITY TO BE ON THE PROPERTY. THE CASE WAS DISMISSED PRIOR TO ARRAIGNMENT MEANING THAT THE DEFENDANT (WHO IS NOT A U.S. CITIZEN) WILL HAVE NO RECORD.

 Brockton Police responded to the parking lot of an apartment complex in response to 911 calls reporting that a vehicle in the parking lot was firing gunshots. Upon arrival, Police found the Defendant in the parking lot, standing by his vehicle. The Police demanded that the Defendant leave the property, or they would arrest him for Trespassing. According to police, Defendant refused law enforcement’s demands to leave the property immediately. Defendant was charged with criminal Trespassing (G.L. c. 266, §120). Defendant was not a U.S. citizen. Certain criminal convictions against non-U.S. citizens may result in deportation.

Result: Upon hiring Attorney Patrick J. Noonan, Attorney Noonan conducted an immediate investigation and learned that the Defendant’s cousin, who lived in the apartment complex, had given him permission to be on the property. Attorney Noonan provided the District Attorney’s Office with an Affidavit from the cousin stating that he had given the Defendant permission to be on the property. As a result, Defendant did not commit a Trespass because he had lawful authority to be on the property. Moreover, Attorney Noonan argued that there was no probable cause for the offense because the police had no authority to demand that the Defendant leave the property, because the police did not have lawful control over the premises, as they were not residents of the apartment complex. Attorney Noonan’s Motion to Dismiss was allowed, and the case was dismissed prior to arraignment, meaning that the Defendant (who is not a U.S. citizen) will have no record as a result of this case.

CLIENT’S LICENSE TO CARRY FIREARMS WAS SUSPENDED BY BOSTON POLICE FOR BEING UNCOOPERATIVE DURING A POLICE INVESTIGATION, BUT ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN GETS HIS LTC REINSTATED.

Client is a 30 year-old Boston man with no record of criminal convictions. He was issued a License to Carry Firearms (LTC) by the Boston Police. Client was employed in armed security, which required him to have an LTC. In 2020, client was the victim of a drive-by shooting in Hyde Park where he was shot in the leg. While in the hospital, police proceeded to question him, but the officer found that the client was being “uncooperative.” As a result, Boston Police suspended his LTC alleging that he was an “unsuitable person” to be issued an LTC because he was uncooperative with the police.

Result: The client’s livelihood depended on him having an LTC. Because his LTC was denied, he lost his job in armed security and was unemployed. The client’s career in armed security seemed bleak because his LTC was suspended. Immediately, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan filed a Complaint in the Boston Municipal Court seeking judicial review and appealing the decision of the Boston Police in suspending his LTC. Attorney Noonan argued that: There is no reasonable nexus between the Plaintiff’s lack of cooperation with police and a risk to public safety – and the Plaintiff’s lack of cooperation with police was not reasonably related to the statute’s goal of keeping firearms out of the hands of persons who would cause a risk to public safety. Shortly after the filing of the Complaint and the Appeal, the Boston Police rightly decided to reinstate the client’s LTC. Now the client can return to work in armed security.

Massachusetts Court of Appeals

98 Mass. App. Ct. 1102 (2020)

DEFENDANT WAS CONVICTED OF FELONY DRUG OFFENSES AFTER A TRIAL, BUT ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN CONVINCES THE MASSACHUSETTS COURT OF APPEALS TO REVERSE HIS CONVICTIONS AND NOT GUILTY FINDINGS ARE ENTERED FOR THE DEFENDANT

Attorney Patrick J. Noonan represented this client since he was arrested in 2016 on two-counts of Possession with Intent to Distribute Heroin and Marijuana. In this case, a Confidential Informant (CI) provided Brockton Police with information that the Defendant was selling heroin in Brockton. The CI engaged in two controlled buys for drugs with the Defendant under the supervision of Brockton Police. In the two controlled buys, Police observed the Defendant meet the CI and engaged in a drug transaction. After each controlled buy, the drugs were field tested as positive for heroin. As a result of the information supplied by the CI, and the two controlled buys, police obtained a search warrant to search the Defendant’s home in Brockton for drugs. When executing the search warrant, police found 37 bags containing a half-ounce of heroin, and glass jars containing over 3 lbs. of marijuana. As a result of the search, Brockton Police charged the Defendant with Possession with Intent to Distribute Heroin, and Possession with Intent to Distribute Marijuana (G.L. c. 94C, §32C(a)).

Result: In the Brockton District Court, Attorney Noonan filed a Motion to Suppress evidence obtained as a result of the search warrant, which was denied. Attorney Noonan filed an emergency appeal to the Massachusetts Court of Appeals appealing the denial of his Motion to Suppress, which was also denied. Attorney Noonan also represented the Defendant at his jury trial in the Brockton District Court, which ended in guilty verdicts. This time, Attorney Noonan was successful in his appeal to the Massachusetts Court of Appeals, which resulted in the reversal of his convictions, and Not Guilty findings were entered for the Defendant.

“Police seize half ounce of heroin, 3lbs of marijuana from Brockton brothers.” https://www.enterprisenews.com/news/20160629/police-seize-half-ounce-of-heroin-3lbs-of-marijuana-from-brockton-brothers

Read the Appeals Court’s decision in Commonwealth v. Gregory Pierre-Charles.

See Video of Attorney Patrick J. Noonan arguing the appeal before the Massachusetts Court of Appeals.

MOTION TO DISMISS CHARGE OF RESISTING ARREST IS ALLOWED, AS ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN PROVES THERE WAS NO PROBABLE CAUSE TO SUPPORT THE OFFENSE.

 Stoughton Police arrested and charged the Defendant with Resisting Arrest pursuant to G.L. c. 268, §32B. Police were called to a parking lot for a male party sitting in a vehicle “who was reported to be not acting right.” Officer approached the vehicle, and spoke to the Defendant who was mumbling and argumentative. Police observed several empty alcoholic nips bottles in the vehicle. Officers asked him about his drinking, and Defendant was argumentative. Police observed that he was very intoxicated. Police asked him to step out of the vehicle. As he exited the vehicle, Defendant lost his balance and the officer reached out to grab him to prevent him from falling, but the Defendant pulled away and tried to get away from the officers, causing officers to grab the Defendant and take him to the ground. While on the ground, Defendant continued to resist the officers, causing officers to deliver knee strikes to his body.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan filed a Motion to Dismiss the charge of Resisting Arrest for lack of probable cause arguing that: Defendant was not placed under arrest at the time he resisted officers, Officers did not have probable cause to arrest the Defendant for any crime at the time the Defendant resisted officers, and the officers never communicated to the Defendant their intent to arrest him. After a hearing, the Judge allowed Attorney Noonan’s Motion to Dismiss.

Brockton District Court

DOMESTIC ASSAULT & BATTERY AGAINST RETIRED STATE EMPLOYEE DISMISSED ON FIRST COURT DATE

 Defendant, a Brockton man and retired Massachusetts State employee, was charged with domestic Assault & Battery (G.L. c. 265, §13M). Brockton Police responded to the Defendant’s home in response to a 911 call from his wife who reported that the Defendant had been drinking and pushed her. Upon arrival, Defendant admitted that he pushed his wife.

Result: After the Defendant was arraigned, he hired Attorney Patrick J. Noonan who immediately requested a trial date. On the trial date, the wife invoked her marital privilege and elected not to testify against her husband and the case was dismissed.

Hingham District Court

DA’S OFFICE DROPS FELONY CASE AGAINST HANOVER MAN FOR POSSESSION OF EXPLOSIVE DEVICE AFTER ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN PRESENTS PROOF THAT THE DEVICE DID NOT CONTAIN ANY EXPLOSIVE MATERIAL.

 Hanover Police were called to the Defendant’s residence after his wife reported that the Defendant was intoxicated and making threats to commit suicide. Upon arrival, police observed that the Defendant had been consuming alcohol, and the Defendant confirmed that he had made suicidal threats. Police sectioned the Defendant and had him involuntarily committed due to substance abuse and mental health issues. After his arrest, Police seized firearms and ammunition from his residence. Police noticed a hand-grenade, and immediately contacted the Bomb Squad who believed that the grenade was a live explosive and contained explosive material. A K-9 alerted to the grenade as containing explosives. The Bomb Squad detonated and exploded the grenade. As a result, Defendant was charged with Possession of an Incendiary Device (G.L. c. 266, §102(c)), which carries a potential State Prison sentence of not less than five (5) years.

Result:  Defendant had purchased the grenade on gunbroker.com. The grenade was shipped to him by a company in Florida. Our investigator contacted the vendor who sold the grenade to the Defendant. The vendor stated that these grenades were shipped to them from Poland, and the grenades were screened by the Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Customs before the grenades entered the U.S. The vendor stated that the grenades were dummy grenades used by law enforcement for training purposes. The vendor stated that the grenades typically have a white stripe, which indicates that it is a dummy grenade used by law enforcement for teaching purposes. Photographs of the Defendant’s grenade showed that it had a white stripe. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan moved to dismiss the criminal complaint, which was denied by the Judge. Attorney Noonan made several requests to the District Attorney’s Office to dismiss the case, and provided proof from the vendor that the grenade was not live. Attorney Noonan presented evidence that the Defendant was a collector of old military memorabilia, which he used to decorate his home office. Attorney Noonan argued that the Defendant purchased the grenade, believing it was fake, to decorate his home office, which contained many old military collectables. After three requests, the District Attorney’s Office finally dismissed the case.

Plymouth Superior Court

DEFENDANT WAS FACING A MANDATORY PRISON SENTENCE OF 8 YEARS FOR DRUG TRAFFICKING, BUT THE INDICTMENT WAS REDUCED TO A LOWER LEVEL OF DRUG TRAFFICING, AND THE DEFENDANT WAS SPARED FROM SERVING AN ADDITIONAL 4 ½ YEARS IN PRISON.

 Defendant was the target of operating a large scale drug trafficking operation in Brockton. The investigation consisted of information provided to the police by two (2) separate confidential informants. A confidential informant participated in several controlled buys. Under the supervision of police, the informant purchased cocaine from the Defendant, several times, at the Defendant’s residence in Brockton. Police obtained a search warrant to search the Defendant’s residence. When the police executed the search warrant, they recovered the following evidence from the Defendant’s residence, 92.5 grams of cocaine in a closet, 19 grams of cocaine in a bureau, 503 grams of marijuana, 16 Vicodin pills, 5 Percocet pills, over $60,000 in cash, and distribution materials. Defendant was charged with: (1) Trafficking Cocaine (over 100 grams) under G.L. c. 94C, §32E(b), (2) Possession with Intent to Distribute Marijuana under G.L. c. 94C, §32C, and (3) Possession of Class B substance.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan moved to suppress the evidence seized from the Defendant’s residence pursuant to the search warrant. The police obtained a No-Knock search warrant, which allowed them to enter the residence without having to knock and announce their presence. Attorney Noonan argued that, when the police arrived to the residence at 4:00 am to execute the warrant, there were no exigent circumstances present because all the occupants in the house were sleeping – and the police were required to knock and announce their presence because there was no evidence that the occupants of the home presented a threat to officer safety. At the hearing, Attorney Noonan discovered that there was conflicting evidence as to whether the police served the Defendant, in-hand, with a copy of the search warrant, which is required by law. The lead investigating officer testified that he did not have a copy of the search warrant in his possession when he executed the search warrant. The lead officer did not personally serve a copy of the search warrant on the Defendant, and the lead officer did not see any other officers serve the warrant on the Defendant. Rather, the lead officer testified that another officer had a copy of the search warrant, but the officer did not see him serve the warrant on the Defendant. Despite his efforts, Attorney Noonan’s suppression motion was unsuccessful. The indictment for trafficking 100 grams of cocaine carries a mandatory prison sentence of eight (8) years. Attorney Noonan hired an expert chemist who reviewed all the drug evidence, and Attorney Noonan was prepared to present evidence at trial that the Commonwealth would have difficulty proving that the police seized at least 100 grams of cocaine. The Commonwealth deserves a lot of credit because they reviewed the evidence and determined that they might have difficulty in proving that the Defendant trafficking 100 grams or more of cocaine – so the Commonwealth agreed to reduce the indictment to trafficking under 100 grams. Trafficking in cocaine under 100 grams carries a mandatory prison sentence of 3 ½ years. The Defendant pled guilty to the reduced offense, and he was spared from serving 4 ½ years in prison.

Stoughton District Court

RESISTING ARREST:                    DISMISSED

BREAKING & ENTERING:          PTP

VANDALISM:                                  PTP

DISORDERLY CONDUCT:           PTP

Defendant is 29 years old. Defendant has a history of severe alcohol abuse. On the night in question, Defendant was in his second-floor apartment in Canton and he was highly intoxicated. Defendant climbed his second-story balcony and broke into the third-floor apartment, which was unoccupied. Police were called to the third-floor apartment after receiving reports of loud noises coming from that apartment. Police entered the apartment where they found the Defendant sitting on the floor. He was intoxicated and argumentative. Defendant was experiencing hallucinations. Police were so concerned about the Defendant’s mental state that he sectioned him and had him transported to the hospital. Defendant was arrested by Canton Police and charged with: (1) Resisting Arrest (G.L. c. 268, §32B), Breaking and Entering (G.L. c. 266, §16), Vandalism (G.L. c. 266, §126A) and Disorderly Conduct.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan investigated the case and determined that there was a defense of lack of criminal responsibility, also known as an insanity defense. Attorney Noonan consulted with a Psychiatrist who concluded that there was evidence of temporary insanity, and the Psychiatrist was prepared to testify as an expert witness for the defense. The proposed evidence of temporary insanity was the following: Defendant was admitted into a detox facility for alcohol dependence where he was administered several dosages of a medication known as Librium. The facility should have held the Defendant for a minimum of three days before discharging him. Defendant was able to discharge himself from the facility during the early stages of his detox. Attorney Noonan argued that the facility was negligent in prematurely discharging the Defendant because the Defendant still had the Librium in his system and it was very likely that the Defendant would consume alcohol after his discharge. After he was discharged, the Defendant returned to his apartment where he consumed a tremendous amount of alcohol. The combination of the alcohol and the Librium caused the Defendant to suffer from an acute mental reaction, as evidence by the fact that the Defendant was hallucinating when the police arrived and the police sectioned him due to his alarming mental state. When he was taken to the hospital, Defendant had no memory of what took place. The Commonwealth agreed to place the Defendant on Pretrial Probation for a period of one year with the condition that he continue with his mental health and substance abuse treatment. If the Defendant complies with these conditions, all charges will be dismissed. Pretrial Probation is an excellent outcome because the Defendant does not have to admit to any guilt or wrongdoing, and the charges are dismissed without any adverse finding against the Defendant.

Brockton District Court

DEFENDANT WAS CHARGED WITH DOMESTIC VIOLENCE WHILE ON BAIL FOR VIOLENT CRIMES IN ANOTHER COURT. THE COMMONWEALTH REVOKED HIS BAIL AND THE CLIENT WAS BEING HELD FOR AT LEAST 60 DAYS. AFTER CONTACTING OUR FIRM, THE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CASE WAS DISMISSED AND THE CLIENT WAS IMMEDIATELY RELEASED FROM CUSTODY.

Defendant had an open criminal case in Suffolk County for Breaking & Entering (G.L. c. 266, §16), (2) Assault & Battery (G.L. c. 265, §13A), (3) Assault & Battery with Dangerous Weapon (G.L. c. 265, §15A), and (4) Violation of an Abuse Prevention Order (G.L. c. 209A, §7). While on bail for his criminal cases in Suffolk County, Defendant was arrested in Brockton for Assault & Battery on a Family or Household Member (G.L. c. 265,§13M); the alleged victim being his girlfriend. As a result, the Commonwealth revoked his bail, and the Defendant was ordered to be held in custody for at least 60 days under G.L. c. 276, §58A – for committing a new offense.

Result: While in jail, client hired our firm. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan conducted an investigation into the Brockton case. Our private investigator interviewed the witness who called the police to report the assault. The witness told our investigator that he did not witness the incident, but called the police because he heard yelling from the Defendant’s residence. Thus, there was no viable witness who would testify to the incident at trial. We were able to get the case dismissed quickly. Even though the case was dismissed, the Judge could still hold the Defendant in custody for at least 60 days. Our office convinced the judge to release the Defendant prior to the expiration of the 60 days, and the Defendant was immediately released from jail.

Quincy District Court

CONVICTION FOR UNLAWFUL POSSESSION OF HEROIN IS VACATED AFTER ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN PROVES THAT THE POLICE ILLEGALLY SEARCHED THE DEFENDANT’S HOME.

The client, with another attorney, admitted to sufficient facts for a finding of guilty on the criminal charge unlawful possession of heroin (Possession of a Controlled Substance under G.L. c. 94C, §34) and she was placed on probation. State Police and Local Police arrived to the client’s residence in Randolph. The client resided in the residence with her son. Her son was the subject of a homicide investigation. Her son had been arrested for drug distribution, which resulted in an overdose death. The son was in the police station where he was being interrogated by the police. While the son was in the police station, the son signed a form granting the police permission to search his bedroom for illegal narcotics. Police arrived at the residence where they informed the client that her son had given police permission to search his bedroom. When they executed the search, police did not find any drugs in the son’s bedroom. The police proceeded to question the client, as she was sitting on a couch in the living room. Police observed that the client was making movements, as if she was hiding something under the couch. Police searched underneath the couch and found heroin. The client admitted to the police that she was hiding the drugs to protect her son.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan represented the son. In the son’s case, Attorney Noonan was able to suppress evidence, including statements made by the son while he was being interrogated by police. Most importantly, Attorney Noonan was able to suppress evidence of the son’s consent to allow police to search the residence. Thus, the police search of the home was found to be illegal. Because the search of the home was ruled to be illegal, Attorney Noonan filed a motion to vacate the mother’s conviction, as her arrest stemmed from the illegal search of the home by police. As a result, the client’s conviction of illegal possession of heroin was vacated, and dismissed.

Roxbury District Court

ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN VACATES FELONY CONVICTION FOR DRUG DISTRIBUTION.

 In 1997, when the client was 23 years old, he was arrested and charged with Distribution of Marijuana (Distribution of a Controlled Substance under G.L. c. 94C, §32A), an offense carrying a punishment of 10 years in state prison. The charge stems from an incident in which the police were conducting surveillance in a high-crime area. Police observed a vehicle occupied by the Defendant (the operator), a front seat passenger (co-defendant), and a backseat passenger. Police observed the vehicle pull into a McDonald’s parking lot. Police observed a white male, standing on the side walk next to the McDonald’s, continuously pacing back and forth while looking at the parked vehicle. Police observed a passenger in the vehicle, exit the vehicle, and approach the white male. Police observed the two men exchange money and an object. After the alleged drug transaction, police stopped the vehicle where they found some cash and beepers. Defendant pled guilty to the felony offense of Drug Distribution.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan filed a Motion to Vacate the Defendant’s conviction for felony drug distribution pursuant to Massachusetts Rules of Criminal Procedure 30(b). Attorney Noonan argued that there was insufficient evidence to prove that the Defendant, as the driver, was an accessary, accomplice, or a joint venturer in the drug transaction. Further, there was insufficient evidence to prove that the Defendant shared the mental intent of the person who committed the crime of drug distribution. After reviewing the Motion to Vacate, and the evidence presented by Attorney Noonan, the District Attorney’s Office agreed to vacate the conviction. Once the conviction was vacated, the Commonwealth filed a Nolle Prosequi, a statement by the prosecution that they will no longer prosecute the case. In their Nolle Prosequi, the Commonwealth stated: “Following a review of the facts and circumstances of the above case, and in an effort to proceed in the interests of justice, the Commonwealth respectfully enters this Nolle Prosequi.”

Plymouth District Court

UNLAWFUL POSSESSION OF ASSAULT WEAPON:             DISMISSED

UNLAWFUL POSSESSION OF ASSAULT WEAPON:             DISMISSED

THREATS TO COMMIT MURDER:                                           DISMISSED

IMPROPER STORAGE OF A FIREARM:                                  GUILTY, PROBATION

Defendant, a Plymouth resident and commercial lobsterman, was a front seat passenger in a car driven by his wife. Defendant was extremely intoxicated and threatened to blow his wife’s brains out. Defendant proceeded to punch and elbow the passenger side window causing the glass to shatter. Defendant then jumped out of the moving vehicle. His wife called the police. Upon arrival to the scene of the incident, police found the Defendant lying on the ground, covered in vomit, and intoxicated. Defendant was transported to the emergency room. Laboratory tests showed the presence of alcohol and drugs. Defendant placed in a secured psychiatric unit of the hospital. Because the Defendant had a License to Carry Firearms, police went to his residence to secure all his weapons. Police located an assault rifle. Modifications had been made to the rifle causing it to be an illegal assault weapon. Police also located a magazine which had been illegally modified causing it to be in an illegal feeding device for the assault weapon. The magazine’s pin had been removed and modified to hold 30 rounds of ammunition. Defendant was interviewed by police where he admitted to making the illegal modifications. When searching his house to seize all his firearms, police were unable to locate a firearm that had been registered to the Defendant. Police were eventually able to locate the missing firearm in a kitchen cabinet. This firearm was not properly stored. Defendant was charged by the Plymouth Police with two counts of illegal possession of an assault weapon pursuant to G.L. c. 140, §121, threats to commit murder pursuant to G.L. c. 275, §2, and Improper Storage of a Firearm pursuant to G.L. c. 140, §131L.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan filed motions to suppress key evidence in the case. First, Attorney Noonan sought to suppress the Defendant’s confession to committing the crimes on the grounds that his statements were not voluntary due to his alcohol and drug intoxication and psychiatric conditions. Second, Attorney Noonan sought to suppress the search of the Defendant’s home because his wife did not have legal authority to consent to the search and seizure of the Defendant’s personal property. Prior to litigating the motions to suppress, the Commonwealth offered to dismiss all charges except for the misdemeanor offense of Improper Storage of a Firearm to which the Defendant pled guilty and was placed on probation for one year.

Brockton District Court

DOMESTIC ASSAULT & BATTERY CHARGE AGAINST FATHER WITH NO CRIMINAL RECORD DISMISSED ON THE DAY OF TRIAL.

Police were dispatched to the Defendant’s residence in response to a call for a domestic disturbance. Upon arrival, police spoke with the Defendant’s daughter who alleged that her father pushed her during an argument causing her to fall to the ground. Defendant was charged with Assault and Battery (G.L. c. 265, §13A).

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan immediately requested a trial date intending to prove his client’s innocence. On the day of trial, the Commonwealth dismissed the case.

Lowell District Court

ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN PERSUADES THE COURT TO REVERSE THE DECISION OF THE LOWELL POLICE DEPARTMENT IN SUSPENDING THE CLIENT’S LICENSE TO CARRY FIREARMS DUE TO ARRESTS FOR OPERATING UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF ALCOHOL AND CARRYING A FIREARM WHILE INTOXICATED.

Plaintiff had a valid License to Carry Firearms (LTC), which was suspended by the Lowell Police Department because he was arrested and charged with Operating under the Influence of Alcohol and Carrying a Firearm while Intoxicated. According to the police department, the Plaintiff’s arrest made him an “unsuitable person” to possess a firearm. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan appealed the decision of the police department to the Lowell District Court. The Police Department opposed the appeal and maintained that the Plaintiff was an unsuitable person.

Result: At the hearing in the Lowell District Court, the firearm licensing officer for the Lowell Police Department testified that the facts and circumstances of the Plaintiff’s arrest for OUI and Carrying a Firearm while Intoxicated justified the decision to suspend his LTC. Attorney Noonan cross-examined the officer and pointed out that the Plaintiff was found not guilty of OUI and the firearm offense was dismissed by the prosecution. Nevertheless, the Lowell Police Department felt that the facts surrounding his arrest supported the decision to suspend his LTC. Attorney Noonan argued that the OUI should not be considered as a basis for a suspension because a jury, upon hearing the facts of the case, determined that the Plaintiff was not guilty of committing that offense. The Police Department maintained that the Defendant’s possession of a firearm while arrested for an OUI made him unsuitable. However, Attorney Noonan pointed out that the officer never investigated, or determined, why the prosecution decided to dismiss the firearm offense. The Court inferred that the firearm offense must have been a weak case if the prosecution decided not to prosecute him for that offense. Moreover, the licensing officer did not contact the Plaintiff to interview him to learn about outcome of the criminal case. The Court found that the Lowell Police Department should have conducted further inquiry before deciding to suspend the LTC. Attorney Noonan argued that it was unreasonable to suspend the LTC because the arrest occurred a long time ago, and the decision to suspend his license was not based on any recent evidence of unsuitability. Attorney Noonan had his client testify and he presented evidence of his suitability, which the Court credited. After the hearing, the Court reversed the decision to suspend the LTC and found that Attorney Noonan met his burden of proving that the decision by the Defendant was an abuse of discretion.

Plymouth District Court

ASSAULT & BATTERY: DISMISSED

ASSAULT & BATTERY DANGEROUS WEAPON: DISMISSED

STALKING: DISMISSED

VIOLATION OF RESTRAINING ORDER: DISMISSED

Defendant is a 26 year-old man with no criminal record, an electrical apprentice, and small business owner. Defendant is a resident of Halifax. He was in a dating relationship with his girlfriend for several years. After she broke up with him, she went to the Pembroke Police Station to report that she had been verbally and physically abused, and stalked by the Defendant. She recounted three instances of disturbing conduct by the Defendant. In the first incident, Defendant showed up to her birthday party, uninvited and unannounced, got into physical fights with her friends, was ejected from the party and the police were called. In the second incident, Defendant showed up to a bar and confronted her, as she was on a date with another guy. She got into her truck to leave, but the Defendant jumped on the back of her truck while yelling and screaming. Defendant slammed the car door on her leg. Defendant pulled her out of the truck and proceeded driving, as she was in the passenger seat screaming. She videotaped the incident and gave it to police. In the third incident, Defendant showed up at her friend’s house, parked outside and waited for her and followed her home and she called 911, but the Defendant fled before police arrived. She also provided police with photographs showing bruises on her as a result of the Defendant slamming a door on her arm. As a result, Defendant was charged in the Plymouth District Court with: (1) Assault & Battery on a Family / Household Member pursuant to G.L. c. 265, §13M(a), (2) Assault & Battery with a Dangerous Weapon pursuant to G.L. c. 265, §15A(b), and Stalking pursuant to G.L. c. 265, §43(a). The girlfriend obtained a restraining order against him known as an Abuse Prevention Order under G.L. c. 209A. After she obtained the restraining order, Defendant violated the restraining order on three separate occasions by calling her, texting her, and showing up to her place of work. As a result, Defendant was charged with three counts of Violation of an Abuse Prevention Order pursuant to G.L. c. 209A, §7.

Result: Immediately, Patrick J. Noonan conducted an investigation to defend his client. He obtained evidence to contest the stalking charges showing that the evidence was insufficient to establish three separate instances of stalking, as required by the stalking statute. The girlfriend claimed that the Defendant stalked her after she broke up with him. However, the defense obtained text messages showing that they were still dating and were very much together and a couple when the alleged incidents of stalking occurred. Although the girlfriend claimed that the police were called to remove the Defendant from her birthday party, the defense obtained evidence showing that nobody ever called the police. To contest the charge of Assault & Battery with a Dangerous Weapon charge, Counsel viewed the video of this incident showing that the Defendant never slammed the car door (i.e., dangerous weapon) on her leg, as she claimed. Finally, the defense obtained evidence of prior criminal conduct by the girlfriend to attack her credibility, as well as her efforts to change her name to conceal her criminal record. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan came to trial ready to attack the case, but the Commonwealth decided to dismiss all charges.

ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN VACATES CONVICTIONS FOR BREAKING & ENTERING, MALICIOUS DAMAGE TO A VEHICLE, AND LARCENY. 

The client is a 38 year-old lifelong resident of New Bedford. He has been gainfully employed as a contractor. He has been happily married with three step-children. He even became the legal guardian of his wife’s teenaged son. He is the grandfather of two children. He dropped out of high school, but obtained a G.E.D. at the age of 38. The client applied for a License to Carry Firearms, but the police department denied his application because he had been convicted, as a juvenile, of several offenses, including: Breaking & Entering, Malicious Damage to a Vehicle, and Larceny from a Person. Because of his convictions, the client was automatically disqualified from ever obtaining a License to Carry Firearms.

Result: Regarding the conviction for Larceny from a Person, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan moved to vacate the conviction on grounds that his prior lawyer was ineffective. Sixteen (16) days after his arraignment, his prior attorney wrongly advised him to plead guilty without conducting any investigation into the case. Attorney Noonan conducted an investigation and found that the evidence was insufficient to charge him with that offense. Specifically, the client was walking with another juvenile on the sidewalk when the other juvenile decided to steal a wallet from an older man who walking on the sidewalk. Attorney Noonan argued that the evidence did not establish that the client was an accessory or joint-venturer in the larceny because the client did not participate, in any way, in the larceny. Rather, the evidence merely showed that the Defendant was present when the larceny happened, which is not enough to convict him as an accessory. The Commonwealth reviewed the evidence provided by the defense and decided to vacate and dismiss the charge. After numerous court appearances, Attorney Noonan persuaded the District Attorney’s Office to vacate the client’s other convictions, citing the client’s young age at the time of the offenses, and compelling evidence showing that the client completely turned his life around. After the convictions were vacated, the client was able to obtain a License to Carry Firearms.

ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN VACATES CONVICTION FOR DRUG POSSESSION.

The client is a 39 year-old Brockton resident and a longtime union employee; working as a glass installer for commercial buildings. The client was issued a License to Carry Firearms. However, the client attempted to purchase a firearm, but the gun shop informed him that the sale was denied by the FBI because the client had been convicted in Massachusetts of Unlawful Possession of Class D-Marijuana. Under federal law, a conviction of simple possession of marijuana disqualifies someone from purchasing a firearm. Specifically, a person falling into the category of a Federally Prohibited Person is disqualified from purchasing a firearm.

The Federal Gun Control Act of 1968, the Federal Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act of 1997, and 18 U.S.C. §922(g) makes it unlawful for certain categories of persons to ship, transport, receive or possess firearms or ammunition, including: Any person convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year – or any person who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act, codified at 21 U.S.C. §802). The federal government classifies marijuana as a Schedule I drug and a conviction for simple possession of marijuana renders the person a Federally Prohibited Person. The client was convicted in the Quincy District Court for Simple Possession of Class D Substance to wit: Marijuana pursuant to G.L. c. 94C, §34 and the marijuana conviction made him a Federally Prohibited Person rendering him ineligible from purchasing a firearm under federal law. Therefore, the client must have the marijuana conviction vacated.

Result: In the police report, the police stopped the client’s vehicle due to a civil motor vehicle infraction. Defendant was placed under arrest because his driver’s license was suspended. The client told the police that he had some marijuana in a pack of cigarettes and he was charged with unlawful possession of marijuana and was later convicted in 2006. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan moved to vacate the conviction because the evidence showed that the quantity of marijuana, within the pack of cigarettes, was less than one ounce making this a civil offense under present day Massachusetts law. In 2008, the Massachusetts Legislature decriminalized the possession of one ounce or less of marijuana. See G.L. c. 94C, §32L. Attorney Noonan showed that it would be physically impossible to package more than one ounce of marijuana in a pack of cigarettes. Based on the evidence presented by Attorney Noonan, the conviction was vacated and dismissed.

CLIENT’S APPLICATION FOR A LICENSE TO CARRY FIREARMS WAS DENIED FOR COMPLETING THE APPLICATION FORM UNTRUTHFULLY, BUT ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN PERSUADES THE POLICE DEPARTMENT TO ISSUE HIS CLIENT AN LTC AFTER AN APPEAL.

The client is a 55 year-old professional truck driver. The client applied for a License to Carry Firearms, which was denied, because the police department determined that the client filled out the application form untruthfully. The police department alleged that the client was untruthful when answering questions about his criminal history. The police department alleged that the client failed to disclose criminal charges on his criminal record in his application.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan appealed the police department’s denial of the client’s application for an LTC arguing that the client did not deliberately conceal his criminal record, but simply misunderstood the question. The client and his wife submitted statements explaining how they misunderstood the question when completing the application. During the appellate proceedings, through negotiations with legal counsel for the police department, the police department allowed the client to resubmit a new application and to disclose everything pertaining to his criminal record. The client resubmitted a new application and the police department issued him a License to Carry Firearms.

Chicopee District Court

ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN WINS APPEAL AND OBTAINS A COURT ORDER REVERSING THE DECISION OF THE POLICE DEPARTMENT IN SUSPENDING THE CLIENT’S LICENSE TO CARRY FIREARMS FOR BEING AN UNSUITABLE PERSON.

The client was issued a Class A License to Carry Firearms without restrictions. The Chicopee Police Department suspended his LTC alleging that he was an unsuitable person to possess a license stemming from an incident in which the police were called to his residence. Upon arrival, the client was outside his residence, intoxicated, and he was about to operate his vehicle until police intervened. The client’s wife told the police that the client had been drinking at the casino, was intoxicated, and she was concerned about him driving. The client wanted to take his firearm and leave the house prior to the police being called. The police went into the client’s home to retrieve his firearm while the client remained outside. The firearm was kept in a locked safe. The wife escorted police to the gun safe, she unlocked the safe, and the police seized the firearm. The client’s wife, who did not have an LTC, knew the combination to the gun safe and she was able to access the firearm. The police department suspended his LTC claiming that he was an unsuitable person because his wife knew the combination to the gun safe, she was able to access his firearm, and she did not have a gun license, and the police department was concerned that the client was going to access his firearm while intoxicated and drive away while under the influence.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan filed an appeal in the Chicopee District Court disputing that his client was an unsuitable person. At the hearing, the Judge entered an order reversing the police department’s decision to suspend the LTC. The Court entered an order directing the police department to issue the client a Class A License to Carry Firearms without restrictions.

Brockton District Court

ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN GETS DOMESTIC ASSAULT AND BATTERY CHARGE AGAINST CERTIFIED NURSING ASSISTANT AND IMMIGRANT DISMISSED.

The police were called to the Defendant’s residence in Bridgewater in response to a call from a neighbor reporting loud yelling coming from the Defendant’s apartment. Upon arrival, police spoke with the Defendant’s husband who stated that the Defendant lunged at him, grabbed his neck and shoved him. Defendant admitted to police that she lunged forward and shoved her husband, but she denied grabbing his neck. The police charged the Defendant with Assault & Battery on a Family / Household Member pursuant to G.L. c. 265, §13M(a). Defendant is a Certified Nursing Assistant with no criminal record.

Result: Prior to trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan provided the prosecutor with background information about his client. The client is a 33 year-old woman with no criminal record. She is not a U.S. citizen, but she had a Green Card. She was born in Haiti and immigrated to the U.S. Despite her difficulties in speaking English, she took English language classes and eventually earned an Associate’s Degree in Nursing. She worked at a nursing home as a Certified Nursing Assistant. She moved to Georgia where she obtained a job as a patient care technician assisting patients in dialysis treatment. She reconciled with her husband. They lived happily together in Georgia with their new baby. Her husband did not wish to pursue the charges. The husband wished to invoke his marital privilege and refused to testify against his wife. On the day of trial, the case was dismissed.

ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN GETS CLIENT’S LICENSE TO CARRY FIREARMS REINSTATED DESPITE SUSPENSION FOR MULTIPLE INCIDENTS OF INTOXICATION.

The client is a 54 year-old automobile mechanic and owner of a pet grooming business. Since 1995, the client has been issued a License to Carry Firearms with no incidents. However, the police department suspended his LTC due to multiple incidents occurring at his home. In one incident, the police were called to his home due to a verbal argument with his wife wherein the client became upset and threw a glass fruit bowl. During this incident, the wife told the police that her husband had a drinking problem and he spouts off at the mouth when he’s been drinking. In a second incident, the police were called to the client’s house in response to domestic incident between the client and his adult son, which became physical. Upon arrival, police observed that the client was intoxicated. Witnesses in the home reported that the Defendant had been drinking all day and was causing problems leading to a heated exchange with his adult son. Based on the two incidents, the police department suspended the client’s LTC finding him to be an unsuitable person to possess a firearm.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan filed an appeal in the district court challenging the suspension. Attorney Noonan and legal counsel for the town engaged in extensive discussions, and Attorney Noonan provided additional information regarding his client’s background and the circumstances surrounding the incidents. Attorney Noonan presented evidence of his client’s successful substance abuse treatment. Through negotiations with town counsel, the police department reconsidered its decision and agreed to grant the client an LTC subject to the completion of certain conditions.

IN A HUMAN TRAFFICKING INVESTIGATION, COMMONWEALTH SEEKS TO COMPEL THE DEFENDANT TO PROVIDE THE PASSWORD TO HIS CELL-PHONE. ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN OPPOSED THE MOTION TO COMPEL. AFTER A HEARING, COURT DENIED THE MOTION COMPELLING THE DEFENDANT TO PRODUCE HIS PASSWORD. 

Defendant was being investigated for a variety of crimes, including Trafficking of a Person for Sexual Servitude pursuant to G.L. c. 265, §50(a). The police obtained the Defendant’s cell phone through a search warrant. During the investigation, the Commonwealth filed a motion requesting the court to compel the Defendant to provide the password to his cell phone. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan objected and requested a hearing before the Judge. Attorney Noonan submitted a written opposition arguing that the Commonwealth has not satisfied its burden of proof to compel the password. After a hearing, and considering the arguments, the Judge denied the Commonwealth’s motion to compel the Defendant to produce the password to his cell phone.

Wareham District Court

ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN WINS NOT GUILTY VERDICT IN JURY TRIAL FOR OPERATING UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF ALCOHOL.

The Defendant, a Brockton resident, received a phone call from her boyfriend who was in custody at the police station in Middleboro following his arrest for drunk driving. She was asked to come to the police station to bail him out. When she arrived to the police station to bail out her boyfriend, the police immediately suspected that she was under the influence of alcohol. They asked whether she had been drinking, and she admitted to consuming two beers several hours ago. While in the front lobby, the police officer testified that he was immediately overwhelmed by the odor of alcohol flooding the lobby. The Trooper testified that the Defendant’s eyes were glassy. The Trooper testified that the Defendant was argumentative and uncooperative. She stated that she knew a State Trooper and implied that they should let her go. She stated that she would agree not to drive a car. At trial, the Trooper testified that she was drunk. After a vigorous and effective cross-examination of the State Trooper by Attorney Patrick J. Noonan, the jury came back with a not guilty verdict within 10 minutes.

CLIENT’S LICENSE TO CARRY FIREARMS SUSPENDED FOR IMPROPERLY STORING AND LOSING HIS FIREARM, BUT ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN WINS BACK HIS CLIENT’S LTC.

The client is 46 years-old and a resident of Fall River. He married his high school sweetheart and they have two children. He works as a commercial truck driver. His LTC was suspended because he reported his firearm as missing. He stated that he brought his firearm with him to the bank, as he was withdrawing a large sum of money for a down payment on his home, and he left the firearm in his glove compartment while he was inside the bank. When he left the firearm inside the glove compartment, he affixed a lock on the firearm. He was in the process of moving and forgot that his firearm was in the glove compartment. When he went to retrieve his firearm from the glove compartment, he noticed that it was missing, and he contacted the police department to report the disappearance of his firearm. The police department suspended his LTC claiming that he failed to store his firearm properly as required by G.L. c. 140, §131L.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan appealed the suspension of the LTC and presented evidence that his client stored his firearm in his glove compartment properly by using a “tamper-resistant mechanical lock or other safety device,” which is recognized as a proper means to secure a firearm under the statute (G.L. c. 140, §131L.) The client purchased a Ruger lock for his Ruger firearm. He used the Ruger lock to lock his firearm by removing the magazine and fitting the lock through the empty magazine and empty chamber. Attorney Noonan argued that the Ruger lock was sufficient because it rendered the firearm inoperable by an unauthorized user. Attorney Noonan presented evidence that the firearm was outside the client’s control for a short period of time and he immediately reported it missing to the police as soon as he discovered its disappearance. Through negotiations with legal counsel for the police department, the suspension status was removed from the database.

Brockton District Court

CHARGE OF MALICIOUS DAMAGE TO MOTOR VEHICLE DISMISSED AFTER ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN PRESENTS EVIDENCE THAT THE ALLEGED VICTIM COMMITTED A CRIME BY ILLEGALLY RECORDING A CONVERSATION WITH THE DEFENDANT.

The alleged victim called the police to report that the Defendant damaged her car; scratching the car and carving a derogatory word on the car. Police came to the scene and observed the damage. The alleged victim reported to the police that she (alleged victim) had audiotaped a telephone conversation wherein the Defendant admitted to damaging the car. In the recording, the Defendant does not actually admit to causing the damage. Defendant was charged with the felony offense of Malicious Damage to a Motor Vehicle pursuant to G.L. c. 266, §28(a).

Result: Based on the alleged victim’s report to the police in which she stated that she recorded her telephone conversation with the Defendant, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan brought a criminal complaint against the alleged victim for violating the Wiretapping Statute [under G.L. c. 272, §99], which strictly prohibits the secret electronic recording by a private individual of any oral communication. On the day of trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan informed the prosecutor that if the alleged victim testifies, she would incriminate herself for violating the wiretapping the statute. After consulting with the alleged victim, the prosecutor stated that the alleged victim would not take the witness stand and the case was dismissed.

Taunton District Court

ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN WINS NOT GUILTY VERDICT IN 2ND OFFENSE DRUNK DRIVING CASE.

Defendant was charged with Operating under the Influence of Alcohol pursuant to G.L. c. 90, §24(1)(a)(1), second offense, as he had been previously convicted of drunk driving. Defendant was also charged with Negligent Operation of a Motor Vehicle pursuant to G.L. c. 90, §24(2)(a). With a second offense OUI, Defendant was facing stiff penalties, including a two-year suspension of her driver’s license. In this case, Defendant refused the Breathalyzer test. She had previously refused the Breathalyzer test in her prior OUI case, and her driver’s license was suspended for three-years. A Raynham Police Officer was stationed on Route 44 when he observed the Defendant’s vehicle traveling on Route 44 and the Defendant abruptly swerved over a raised median and did a U-turn on Route 44 and started heading in the opposite direction. While following the Defendant, he observed that she grazed construction barrels and swerved over the fog line multiple times. The officer activated his lights to affect a stop, but the Defendant continued driving and got onto the Route 24 onramp. After a quarter-mile, Defendant finally pulled over. The officer testified that the Defendant’s speech was slurred and she stated that she was coming from “West Bridgewater” and she was going to “West Bridgewater.” Defendant’s eyes were glassy and bloodshot. She admitted to consuming two glasses of wine. The officer administered a Field Sobriety test known as the One-Leg Stand; the Defendant attempted to perform the test, but later stated that she did not want to perform any tests and she stopped. The officer testified that the Defendant was extremely argumentative, she was swearing at him, and calling him names. During the booking process, Defendant was asked to remove her earrings, which she did. Later on, Defendant did not remember removing her earrings. The officer formed the opinion that she was intoxicated.

Result: At trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan was able to exclude from evidence the fact that the Defendant was instructed to perform the One Leg Stand Test; the Defendant attempted the test, and later stopped performing the test and refused any other tests. Therefore, no evidence was presented at trial regarding any Field Sobriety Tests. Attorney Noonan conducted an effective cross-examination of the police officer and requested a Not Guilty verdict from the Judge. The Judge found the Defendant not guilty of Operating under the Influence of Alcohol. On the Negligent Operation charge, Attorney Noonan was able to obtain a disposition not resulting in a conviction. After the acquittal, Attorney Noonan obtained a Court Order to restore her driver’s license. She had been without a driver’s license since her arrest.

Taunton District Court

CHARGES OF ASSAULT AND MALICIOUS DESTRUCTION OF PROPERTY AGAINST 18 YEAR OLD DEFENDANT DISMISSED UPON ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN’S EFFECTIVE REPRESENTATION.

Defendant is an 18 year-old kid with no prior criminal record. He was residing with his girlfriend, at her parents’ home, when they had an argument and he left the home. The police were called to the girlfriends home in response to a call that the Defendant kicked the front door of the home, and punched a car in the driveway; damaging the property. Defendant was yelling and screaming while causing the property damage. The girlfriend provided police with text messages from the Defendant in which he expressed suicidal ideations. The police located the Defendant; the police sectioned him and brought him to the hospital for treatment. Defendant was charged with Assault on a Family / Household Member pursuant to G.L. c. 265, §13M(a) and Malicious Destruction of Property under $1,200 pursuant to G.L. c. 266, §127.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan requested a bench trial. At the first scheduled bench trial, the Commonwealth was not ready to prosecute, Attorney Noonan asked for the case to be dismissed, the Commonwealth objected, but the court granted a continuance. At the second bench trial, the Commonwealth offered a deal which would require the Defendant to admit guilt, which the Defendant declined. At the second bench trial, the Commonwealth was not ready, and Attorney Noonan again asked for a dismissal, which the Court denied. Attorney Noonan persuaded the Court to schedule the trial to be heard later in the day. At the second calling of the case, the Commonwealth was unable to go forward and Attorney Noonan’s third request for a dismissal was allowed.

Hingham District Court

MOTION TO DISMISS IN HUMAN TRAFFICKING CASE IS ALLOWED, AS ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN PROVES THERE WAS NO PROBABLE CAUSE TO SUPPORT THE CHARGE. 

In a case publicized in the media, the Defendant was arrested and charged with Trafficking of a Person for Sexual Servitude pursuant to G.L. c. 265, §50(a). Defendant (along with four other Defendants) was arrested for Sex Trafficking in connection with an undercover investigation wherein police posted an advertisement online advertising sexual services in exchange for money. Allegedly, Defendant responded to the advertisement by contacting the phone number listed in the advertisement and exchanged text messages with an undercover officer (posing as a prostitute) and the Defendant offered money in exchange for sex acts. Defendant agreed to meet the undercover officer at a hotel room for the exchange. Upon arrival to the hotel room, Defendant was arrested. Four other Defendants were also charged for responding to the same advertisement, agreeing to an exchange of sex for money, and showing up to the hotel.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan filed a Motion to Dismiss the charge of Sex Trafficking in the Hingham District Court, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to establish probable cause to support that charge. The Commonwealth objected to a hearing on the Motion to Dismiss in the District Court, as they were planning on indicting all Defendants in the Superior Court. Attorney Noonan insisted on having a hearing on the Motion to Dismiss. Attorney Noonan researched the case-law and Legislative intent behind the Sex Trafficking statute and argued that the Sex Trafficking statute was entirely inapplicable to the facts of this case. The District Court Judge agreed and allowed Attorney Noonan’s Motion to Dismiss. The charge was dismissed in the District Court for lack of probable cause. Subsequently, the Commonwealth indicted all Defendants in the Superior Court. In Superior Court, Attorney Noonan intends to file another Motion to Dismiss for lack of probable cause.

Taunton District Court

SECOND OFFENSE DRUNK DRIVING CHARGE AGAINST COMMERCIAL TRUCK DRIVER DISMISSED AT TRIAL, AS ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN ARGUED THAT THE COMMONWEALTH DID NOT HAVE SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO OBTAIN A CONVICTION.

Defendant has been a longtime commercial truck driver. He resides in North Carolina. He is a long haul commercial truck driver, driving an 18-wheeler, transporting items for Amazon. He hauls throughout the United States. In this case, Defendant was driving across country to deliver items to Massachusetts. He pulled into a parking lot in Easton, Massachusetts. While attempting to park his tractor-trailer, he struck a parked car. Upon arrival, police spoke with the Defendant and they detected an odor of alcohol on his breath. Defendant refused any field sobriety tests and was arrested. He refused the Breathalyzer test resulting in serious consequences for a commercial truck driver. He had an old drunk driving charge in North Carolina, but was not convicted. Defendant was charged with Operating under the Influence of Alcohol pursuant to G.L. c. 90, §24(1)(a)(1), second offense, and Negligent Operation of a Motor Vehicle pursuant to G.L. c. 90, §24(2)(a). As a commercial truck driver, his entire livelihood was at stake. If convicted, he would undoubtedly lose his commercial driver’s license and was facing the possibility of a lifetime suspension of his commercial driver’s license.

Result: On the day of the jury trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan informed the Commonwealth of his intention to introduce a video of the Defendant’s booking at the police department. The booking video was exculpatory, as it showed that the Defendant did not exhibit any signs of intoxication or impairment. The evidence of intoxication was very slim. The only sign suggestive of intoxication was an odor of alcohol on the Defendant’s breath, and nothing more. Attorney Noonan discussed the weakness of the case with the Commonwealth and argued that the Commonwealth would be unable to meet its burden to obtain a conviction at trial. The Commonwealth reviewed the booking video, interviewed witnesses, and evaluated the case, and agreed that it would have considerable difficulty proving this case at trial. All charges were dismissed at trial.

A POLICE OFFICER’S LICENSE TO CARRY FIREARMS WAS SUSPENDED DUE TO INTOXICATION AND SUICIDAL THREATS, BUT ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN WINS BACK HIS LTC.

The client was a police officer. His License to Carry Firearms (LTC) was suspended due to an incident wherein the client’s wife called the police to report that the client was intoxicated and threatened to shoot himself. Police located the client and brought him to the hospital for a psychiatric evaluation. As a result of this incident, the client’s LTC was suspended and he was forced to resign from his position as a full-time police officer. The LTC suspension, if upheld, would ruin his career in law enforcement. The client requested that the police department reinstate his LTC, but the police department denied the request and they were standing by their decision. The client contacted Attorney Patrick J. Noonan in hopes of getting his LTC back and resuming his career in law enforcement.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan started building a case to get his client’s LTC back. First, Attorney Noonan retained a highly reputable and credible psychiatrist to review all the records and to conduct an evaluation of the client. The psychiatrist reviewed all the pertinent records, including the police report concerning the incident resulting in the suspension and the medical records regarding the client’s hospitalization. After reviewing the records and evaluating the client, the psychiatrist formed an opinion that the client does not suffer from any substance abuse or mental health disorders and the client does not pose any danger is issued an LTC. Second, upon further investigation, the wife’s report to the police showed that the client did not actually threaten to shoot himself. Third, Attorney Noonan provided all information regarding the client’s personal background and career in law enforcement and security. After reviewing the materials provided by Attorney Patrick J. Noonan, the police department reconsidered its decision and issued the client an LTC. The client can now resume his career in law enforcement.

New Bedford District Court

ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN GETS SEX FOR A FEE CHARGE AGAINST ELECTRICIAN DISMISSED.

Defendant is a 27-year-old man from New Bedford with no criminal record. He has been employed as a Union electrician for several years. He is married. He has six children. Police were conducting surveillance in an area known for prostitution. Police observed a woman walking up and down the sidewalk when a vehicle (operated by the Defendant) pulled up to her, they engaged in a brief conversation, she entered the Defendant’s vehicle, and drove away. Police followed the vehicle, which parked a short distance away. Police approached the vehicle where they observed the Defendant with his pants down and the woman motioning into his lap. Defendant was ordered to exit the vehicle and he admitted to police that he paid the woman for oral sex in exchange for several cartons of cigarettes.

Result: The client, who had no criminal record at all, was so distraught over the incident that he required psychiatric treatment at a hospital and follow-up treatment with a therapist and was prescribed medication for severe depression over the incident. On the second court date, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan was able to get the case dismissed.

CLIENT’S APPLICATION FOR A LICENSE TO CARRY FIREARMS WAS DENIED FOR BEING UNTRUTHFUL, BUT ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN GETS THE POLICE DEPARTMENT TO ISSUE HIS CLIENT AN LTC.

Client is a retired 65 years-old resident of Rehoboth. He applied for a License to Carry Firearms (LTC), which was denied because the police department determined that the client was untruthful about disclosing his criminal history in the application process.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan appealed the denial in the District Court. Attorney Noonan presented evidence that the client did not deliberately conceal his criminal history. Rather, the client disclosed that he had been arrested in the past, but he could not recall the specifics about his prior criminal cases because they were very old. In particular, the client had been arrested for minor offenses; some offenses dating back over 40 years ago. Prior to submitting his application, the client did not obtain his criminal record making it very difficult to recall specific information about his old, prior criminal cases. After negotiations with legal counsel for the town, the police department reconsidered its decision and allowed the client to submit a new application. Attorney Noonan assisted the client in filling out the application to make sure the information was accurate. This time, we obtained his criminal record and accurately disclosed all the information regarding his prior cases. After reviewing the new application, the police department issued the client an LTC.

ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN VACATES CONVICTIONS FOR RECEIVING A STOLEN VEHICLE, MALICIOUS DESTRUCTION OF PROPERTY, AND ATTEMPTED ESCAPE AGAINST 47 YEAR-OLD PLUMBER.

The client is a 47 year-old with no adult record of convictions and a resident of Cape Cod. He has been happily married for 20 years. For over 25 years, client has been a licensed union Plumber. He has been recognized for his volunteer charitable activities. The client applied for a License to Carry Firearms, which was denied because he had been convicted as a juvenile for the following offenses: Receiving a Stolen Motor Vehicle pursuant to G.L. c. 266, §28, Malicious Destruction of Property pursuant to G.L. c. 266, §127, and Attempted Escape pursuant to G.L. c. 268, §16. Because of his juvenile convictions, client was automatically disqualified from obtaining a License to Carry Firearms. Therefore, he needed to have all his juvenile convictions vacated, so he called Attorney Patrick J. Noonan.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan filed a Motion to Vacate the client’s juvenile convictions. Attorney Noonan argued that the offenses occurred a long time ago (approximately 32 years ago) when the client was at the tender age of 15 years old. Attorney Noonan cited research dealing with the development of the juvenile brain substantially affecting the child’s reasoning and judgment. At the tender age of 15, the client should have been treated as a child in need of rehabilitation instead of being treated as a criminal and punished. Attorney Noonan presented evidence showing that his client is now 47 years-old, happily married, a Union Plumber of 25 years, and has never been in any trouble since his youthful mistakes occurring over 30 years ago. The Commonwealth agreed that the client’s juvenile convictions should be vacated in the interests of justice. All convictions were vacated and all charges were dismissed. The client is now eligible to apply for an LTC.

New Bedford District Court

MOTION TO DISMISS CHARGE OF OPERATING UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF ALCOHOL IS ALLOWED AFTER ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN PROVES THE POLICE VIOLATED THE DEFENDANT’S STATUTORY RIGHT TO A BAIL HEARING.

The Dartmouth Police Department arrested and charged the Defendant with Operating under the Influence of Alcohol (G.L. c. 90, §24(1)(a)(1); this being his second offense.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan filed a Motion to Dismiss on the grounds that the Defendant’s statutory right to an out-of-court bail hearing under G.L. c. 276, §58 was violated because the Defendant was unreasonably and unnecessarily held in custody for an excessive amount of time without ever being provided the opportunity to be bailed out by a Bail Clerk. Attorney Noonan introduced evidence showing that the Defendant was held in custody for approximately 11 hours without ever being afforded the opportunity to be bailed out and released from custody by a Bail Clerk. The Court agreed and dismissed the criminal complaint. The client was a long-time commercial truck driver.

ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN VACATES CONVICTION FOR FELONY DRUG OFFENSE AGAINST ASPIRING POLICE OFFICER.

Defendant is a 39 year-old man and aspiring police officer. Defendant took the civil service exam to become a police officer and scored very high on the exams. However, Defendant’s ability to become a police officer was adversely affected by an old felony conviction for Possession with Intent to Distribute Class D-Marijuana pursuant to G.L. c. 94C, §32C. Defendant’s prior attorney did not conduct an investigation or challenge the case, but advised his client to plead guilty to the felony offense.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan filed a Motion to Vacate the conviction. When the Defendant was 18 years-old, he was a student at Brockton High School. An undisclosed source reported to the school that one of four students sitting at a table in the cafeteria was in possession of marijuana. Defendant, one of those students sitting at the table, was searched. In his book-bag, there was marijuana. A search of his car was performed where additional marijuana was found. In total, the school recovered 17 bags containing marijuana and $400 in cash. Attorney Noonan argued that the Defendant’s prior attorney was ineffective in failing to file a Motion to Suppress Evidence to challenge the lawfulness of the search of the Defendant’s person, his book-bag, and automobile. Defendant introduced evidence that he never distributed or sold marijuana to anybody. The $400 in cash was not the proceeds of drug sales, but was earned by two jobs the Defendant was working. A witness who attended Brockton High School with the Defendant, and has known him for 25 years, attested to the fact that the Defendant never sold marijuana. The marijuana in the Defendant’s possession was not intended for any distribution, but was for the Defendant’s personal use. Based on all the evidence presented by Attorney Patrick J. Noonan, the Court vacated the Defendant’s conviction in the interests of justice.

Taunton District Court

ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN WINS NOT GUILTY IN TRIAL FOR OPERATING UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF ALCOHOL.

The Easton Police were dispatched to the scene of a car accident. Upon arrival, police observed a traffic pole in the middle of an intersection. When speaking with the Defendant, he admitted that he was distracted and struck the traffic pole. The pole was knocked down and dragged into the middle of the intersection. Police took photographs of the Defendant’s vehicle showing damage caused by the collision with the traffic pole. Officers detected an odor of alcohol on the Defendant’s breath. Defendant admitted that he had consumed one beer. Defendant failed the field sobriety tests administered to him, including the Nine Step Walk and Turn and the One-Leg Stand. A booking photo was introduced showing that the Defendant’s eyes were red, bloodshot, and glassy. In the Defendant’s vehicle, officers observed nip liquor bottles. At the police station, Defendant was administered a Breathalyzer test showing a blood-alcohol-concentration of 0.09%, over the legal limit of 0.08%. At trial, the officer testified that the Defendant, in his opinion, was intoxicated.

Result: At trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan challenged the officer’s testimony concerning the Defendant’s performance on the field sobriety tests because the Defendant admitted that he was very anxious when performing the tests, and the Defendant weighed 300 lbs., factors unrelated to alcohol use, which can explain his poor performance. Attorney Noonan pointed out that the Defendant did not have any slurred speech and the officer was able to understand everything the Defendant was saying without any difficulty. Upon his arrival, the officer observed the Defendant safely pull into a parking lot and park his vehicle. Defendant did not attempt to flee the scene. The officer observed that the Defendant did not have any difficulty or any unsteadiness when he exited his vehicle. Attorney Noonan highlighted exculpatory portions of the booking video showing that the Defendant did not exhibit certain signs of impairment. After the trial, the Judge found the Defendant not guilty of Operating under the Influence of Alcohol. Unfortunately, the Judge found the Defendant guilty of Negligent Operation where the Defendant admittedly was negligent in striking the traffic pole. The client’s License to Carry Firearms was suspended due to this arrest. However, after his acquittal, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan was able to get the client’s LTC reinstated.

Plymouth District Court

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CHARGES DISMISSED UPON EVIDENCE THAT THE ALLEGED VICTIM HAD A 5TH AMENDMENT PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION.

Defendant’s longtime girlfriend called the police reporting that the Defendant physically assaulted her by punching her in the face multiple times. On the 911 call, the girlfriend was highly emotional, crying, and hysterical. She stated that the Defendant fled the home in his car. Upon arrival to the home, the girlfriend told the police that the Defendant pushed her into a wall. Police took photographs of a damaged wall. The girlfriend had an abrasion with dried blood on her elbow, but she did not have any marks to her face. Police located the Defendant at his place of work. Defendant stated that he never punched or struck his girlfriend. In fact, the girlfriend assaulted him, and he pushed her while attempting to escape from her. The girlfriend admitted that she pushed the Defendant first. The Defendant had visible injuries corroborating his claim that the girlfriend attacked him. Police took photos of the Defendant showing scratches on his chest, arms, neck, and back. Based on the statements of the girlfriend, Defendant was charged in the Plymouth District Court with Assault & Battery on a Family / Household Member pursuant to G.L. c. 265, §13M(a) and Assault & Battery with a Dangerous Weapon pursuant to G.L. c. 265, §15A(b).

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan immediately scheduled the case for a bench trial. Attorney Noonan placed the Commonwealth on notice of his intent to raise self-defense and to introduce evidence that the girlfriend was the initial aggressor. Attorney Noonan argued that the alleged victim would incriminate herself were she to testify at trial because the evidence showed that she attacked the Defendant and inflicted injuries to his body, as evidenced by the injuries to the Defendant depicted in the photos. On the day of the bench trial, the Commonwealth dismissed all charges.

CLIENT WAS INVESTIGATED FOR STEALING OVER $100,000 FROM HIS EMPLOYER. CLIENT CONTACTS NOONAN LAW OFFICE AND NO CRIMINAL CHARGES ARE FILED.

Client was employed as an armed security guard. Part of his responsibilities included transporting large sums of cash. Over the course of several months, over $100,000 in cash was stolen. His employer accused him of stealing the money. An investigator from his employer’s fraud department conducted an interview of the client. It was clear that the client was the target of the investigation. The client denied taking any money. The client provided a written statement. The investigator contacted the client and conducted a second interview targeting the client. The investigator concluded that the client had stolen the money. The client was terminated.

Result: Because the investigation determined that the client had stolen over $100,000, the client contacted Noonan Law Offices because he was concerned that he would be criminally charged. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan immediately contacted the employer. Attorney Noonan sent several letters, and had several conversations with the employer, asserting that his client was innocent and there was insufficient evidence to charge him with a crime. As a result of the efforts by the Noonan Law Offices, the client was never charged with a crime.

CLIENT’S LICENSE TO CARRY FIREARMS WAS SUSPENDED DUE TO AN ARREST FOR OPERATING UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF ALCOHOL AND A CONVICTION FOR NEGLIGENT OPERATION OF A MOTOR VEHICLE, BUT ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN GETS THE CLIENT’S LTC REINSTATED. 

The client had a Class A License to Carry Firearms. The client was arrested for Operating under the Influence of Alcohol (OUI) and Negligent Operation of a Motor Vehicle. The client traversed into a raised median, crashed into a light pole, dragging the light pole into the middle of an intersection. After his arrest, the police department suspended his LTC. The client hired the Noonan Law Offices to represent him on the criminal charges. After a trial, the client, represented by Attorney Patrick J. Noonan, was found not guilty of OUI, but he was found guilty of Negligent Operation of a Motor Vehicle. After the trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan contacted the police department to request the reinstatement of the client’s LTC. Attorney Noonan presented evidence from the trial showing that the client was not intoxicated. After considering the evidence, the police department decided to reinstate the client’s LTC.

Supreme Judicial Court
489 Mass. 155 (2020)

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

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

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

Brockton District Court

MOTION TO DISMISS CHARGE OF RESISTING ARREST ALLOWED, AS ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN PROVED THAT THERE WAS NO PROBABLE CAUSE TO SUPPORT THAT CHARGE.

The client was a passenger in a vehicle involved in a high-speed police chase. The vehicle was the subject of reports of being involved in a drive-by shooting in Boston. When officers attempted to stop the vehicle, the operator fled, accelerated, and a high-speed police chase ensued ultimately ending in the vehicle crashing at an intersection. Officers ordered the operator and the client (passenger) to exit the vehicle by gunpoint and to show their hands. Police alleged that the client resisted arrest by refusing to show his hands and by refusing officers’ commands to exit the vehicle. The operator refused officers’ commands to exit the vehicle, the operator resisted arrest, officers had to use a Taser and physical force to restrain and arrest the operator. Upon a search of the vehicle, officers discovered firearms and ammunition in the glove compartment. The operator and the client were charged with Resisting Arrest (G.L. c. 268, §32B) and various firearms offenses.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan moved to dismiss the charge of Resisting Arrest for lack of probable cause, arguing that the client’s actions in refusing to show his hands and refusing to exit the vehicle did not amount to resisting arrest because there was insufficient evidence to show that the client used or threatened to use physical force or violence against the police officers, or that the client used any other means which created a substantial risk of causing bodily injury to the police officers. The motion to dismiss was allowed.

Plymouth District Court

CHARGE OF LARCENY AGAINST 20 YEAR-OLD NURSE, WITH NO CRIMINAL RECORD, DISMISSED PRIOR TO ARRAIGNMENT. CLIENT WILL HAVE NO CRIMINAL RECORD.

Client is a 20 year-old college student with no criminal record. She is a Certified Nursing Assistant, Personal Care Attendant, and she was accepted to the nursing program at several colleges. The client was the personal care attendant for an elderly couple. The daughter of the elderly couple went to the police department alleging that the client had stolen over $500 from the elderly couple. The client made doordash purchases on behalf of the victims. The victims’ did not have a doordash account. The client used the victims’ debit card information (with their permission) and entered said debit card information into her own doordash account and she made doordash purchases on behalf of the victims. After the client stopped working for the victims, she forgot that the victims debit card was still set to her default payment setting. As a result, when the client made personal doordash purchases, the victims were charged for the purchases, totaling over $500. The client was charged with Larceny under $1,200 pursuant to G.L. c. 266, §30.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan sought to dismiss the criminal charge prior to arraignment to save the client from having a criminal record. Attorney Noonan argued that the client did not have any intent to steal any money from the victims and the client did not know that her personal doordash purchases were billed to the victims because she forgot that the victims debit card information was set to her default payment setting. Attorney Noonan presented substantial character evidence, including a letter from the daughter of an elderly woman, who the client cared for, stating that the client was always responsible, provided excellent care, and the family trusted her, knowing that the client had access to the elderly woman’s finances. The District Attorney’s Office, to their credit, considered all the evidence and agreed to place the client into the pretrial diversion program. So long as the client complies with the conditions set forth by the Commonwealth, the case will be dismissed prior to arraignment, the client will have no criminal record, and she can confidently pursue her dream career in nursing.

CHARGE OF NEGLIGENT OPERATION IS SEALED FROM THE CRIMINAL RECORD OF ACTIVE MILITARY SERVICE MEMBER AND ASPIRING POLICE OFFICER.

The client currently serves in the United States Navy. He enlisted when he turned 18 years-old. He is an aspiring police officer. He applied for the position of a full-time police officer with a police department in another state. Although the police department was willing to hire the client, a criminal background check showed that the client was charged with Negligent Operation of a Motor Vehicle (G.L. c. 90, §24(2)(a)). The police department stated that they were willing to hire the client as a police officer, so long as the charge of Negligent Operation was sealed from his criminal record. The client contacted the Noonan Law Offices. Immediately, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan filed a Motion to Seal the criminal charge from the client’s record pursuant to G.L. c. 276, §100C. After a hearing, the court entered an order sealing the criminal charge from the client’s record. As a result, the client is in an excellent position to get hired as a police officer.

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

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

Brockton District Court

DEFENDANT WAS ALLEGED TO HAVE VIOLATED PROBATION BY FAILING A DRUG TEST, BUT ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN PRESENTS EVIDENCE THAT THE LAB TESTING WAS INCONCLUSIVE AND UNRELIABLE.

The client was on probation after having pled guilty to a multitude of crimes. As a condition of his probation, the client was required to submit to random drug testing by appearing at an independent laboratory and providing a urine sample. The client was notified that he violated his probation when the laboratory reported that the client tested positive for opiates. For violating probation, the client was facing potential incarceration and other significant consequences. The client was adamant that he was clean and didn’t use drugs. He had been sober for 17 months. He was on track to complete his probation because he was doing extremely well. The client retained the Noonan Law Offices to represent him at the probation violation hearing.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan reviewed the laboratory report of the failed test and was suspicious because the laboratory report did not identify the particular opiate detected in the urine. Attorney Noonan believed that the preliminary urine test was unreliable and a confirmatory test should be done. The lab performed a confirmatory test, which was inconclusive. Attorney Noonan contacted the laboratory to obtain information about the confirmatory test. The lab informed Attorney Noonan that the confirmatory test was neither a positive nor a negative result. At the violation hearing, Attorney Noonan argued that probation failed to meet its burden of proof, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the defendant violated probation by testing positive for drugs. Attorney Noonan presented evidence that his client, on his own, obtained a hair follicle test with a negative result for drugs. Attorney Noonan argued that the hair follicle test was more reliable because it detects previous drug use for up to three months. After the hearing, the Judge found that there was insufficient evidence to prove that the defendant violated probation. The client is now on track to successfully complete his probation.

CLIENT’S APPLICATION FOR A LICENSE TO CARRY FIREARMS WAS DENIED FOR FAILING TO DISCLOSE MARIJUANA ARRESTS, BUT ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN CONVINCES THE POLICE DEPARTMENT TO ISSUE AN LTC TO THE CLIENT.

The client applied for a License to Carry Firearms, but the application was denied because the Police Department alleged that the client was an unsuitable person for failing to disclose marijuana arrests on his application. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan appealed the denial to the district court. Attorney Noonan argued that the client did not deliberately conceal the marijuana arrests because the arrests were very old. When he applied for the LTC, the client did not obtain a copy of his criminal record and he did not have the benefit of reviewing his criminal record in order to accurately disclose his past marijuana arrests. After reviewing Attorney Noonan’s appeal, the police department agreed to issue the client a License to Carry Firearms.

Brockton District Court

ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN WINS NOT GUILTY VERDICTS IN CASE OF OPERATING UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF ALCOHOL AND NEGLIGENT OPERATION AGAINST HAITAN IMMIGRANT.

The client is an immigrant from Haiti with no criminal record. A State Trooper observed the Defendant operating erratically on Route 495 South. The Trooper observed the Defendant swerving and crossing the fog line. When signaled to pull over, Defendant continued traveling at a slow rate of speed and almost came to a complete stop in the right-hand travel lane. The Trooper observed that the Defendant’s speech was slurred, his eyes were bloodshot and glassy, and he detected a strong odor of alcohol coming from the Defendant’s breath. The Trooper noticed that the Defendant was unsteady on his feet. The Trooper administered a field sobriety test, the One Leg Stand, and found that the Defendant failed this test. The Trooper recovered a Fireball nip bottle in the Defendant’s pant pocket. Defendant was charged with Operating under the Influence of Alcohol and Negligent Operation (G.L. c. 90, §24).

Result: At trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan affectively attacked the Trooper’s testimony that the Defendant was intoxicated. Attorney Noonan excluded evidence regarding one particular field sobriety test. As to the other field sobriety test, Attorney Noonan argued that the Defendant recently suffered an ankle injury, which affected his ability to perform satisfactorily on the test. Through cross-examination, the Trooper admitted that he did not know whether the liquor bottle was opened or that any contents had been consumed. Attorney Noonan established that the Defendant did not demonstrate any noticeable signs of impairment during the booking process. After concluding his cross-examination of the police officer, the trial judge found that the Commonwealth failed to present sufficient evidence that the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol or that he operated his vehicle negligently. Defendant was found not guilty of all charges.

Brockton District Court

ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN WINS NOT GUILTY VERDICT IN DRUNK-DRIVING CASE AGAINST HAITIAN IMMIGRANT.

The client is an immigrant from Haiti. He is not a U.S. citizen. Client attended a wedding on Cape Cod. He was driving home to Brockton. As he was driving on Route 24, State Troopers were parked in the breakdown lane. The Trooper observed the Defendant speeding, his vehicle crossed the fog line, and he came close to striking the police cruiser. Troopers pursued the Defendant’s vehicle, as it exited the highway. Police located the Defendant’s vehicle parked in a Gas Station. It was almost 2:00 a.m., and the gas station was closed, but the Defendant approached the gas pump thinking the gas station was open. Officers observed that the Defendant’s pants were unbuttoned and there was liquid on his crotch area. Troopers administered two Field Sobriety Tests and the Trooper testified that the Defendant failed the tests. The Trooper testified that the Defendant had bloodshot and glassy eyes, his speech was slurred, and there was an odor of alcohol on his breath. Police found a liquor bottle in his car. As a result, Defendant was charged with Operating under the Influence of Alcohol, Negligent Operation, Speeding, Marked Lanes Violation, Obstructing an Emergency Vehicle, and Open Container of Alcohol.

Result: After a bench trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan aggressively cross-examined the State Trooper and challenged his opinion that the Defendant was intoxicated and attacked his testimony concerning the operation of the Defendant’s vehicle. After the trial, Defendant was found Not Guilty on all charges, but was found response of committing a marked lanes violation.

JUVENILE CHARGES SEALED FROM CRIMINAL RECORD OF MILITARY SERVICEMAN AND ASPIRING POLICE OFFICER.

Client is a 29 year-old member of the United States Navy and aspiring police officer. Client applied for the position as a full-time police officer for a police department in another state. Although he was more than qualified, the police department told him that he needed to seal juvenile charges on his criminal record. The police department was willing to hire him subject to his juvenile record being sealed. Client had charges on his juvenile record including Breaking & Entering and Larceny. The client needed the juvenile charges sealed immediately because he was close to getting hired. Therefore, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan was able to seal the juvenile charges quickly such that the client could proceed with the application process.

Barnstable District Court

PATRICK J. NOONAN WINS NOT GUILTY VERDICT IN CASE OF CARRYING A FIREARM WHILE INTOXICATED.

The client, a longtime restaurant manager and resident of Yarmouth, was charged with Carrying a Firearm While Intoxicated (G.L. c. 269, §10H) in the Barnstable District Court. The police received a call for a wellness check. Defendant’s father reported to the police that the Defendant made suicidal statements and was in the possession of a firearm while parked in his car outside the father’s house. Upon arrival, the police officer observed the Defendant parked in a vehicle with his firearm located on the passenger seat. The officer observed numerous empty nip bottles of liquor in the vehicle. The officer determined that the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol and charged him with Carrying a Firearm while Intoxicated.

Result: At trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan challenged the prosecution’s evidence that the Defendant was intoxicated and under the influence of alcohol. The Commonwealth’s case rested on the testimony of the police officer and his opinion that the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol. The case was won on Attorney Noonan’s cross-examination of the police officer. After his cross-examination of the police officer, the trial judge found that the Commonwealth failed to meet its burden of proving that the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol and that his consumption of alcohol affected his ability to safely carry a firearm.

Brockton District Court

CHARGES DISMISSED AT TRIAL UPON ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN’S NOTICE OF INTENTION TO INTRODUCE EVIDENCE REGARDING THE MISCONDUCT OF THE ARRESTING OFFICER.  

Police responded to the scene of a grocery store upon receiving a report that the Defendant was disruptive, threatening an employee, and stealing from the store. Upon the arrival of police, Defendant was walking down the street. Police confronted the Defendant who provided a false name. Defendant did not want to engage with the police officers and turned his back to walk away from them. However, officers claimed that the Defendant grabbed hold of the officer’s jacket resulting in a physical altercation between the Defendant and the two police officers. The two officers used excessive force, punching the defendant numerous times in the face, and using a baton on him. The officers charged the Defendant with numerous crimes, including Assault & Battery on a Police Officer and Resisting Arrest.

Result: During his investigation and preparation of the case, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan discovered that the arresting officer had engaged in misconduct in connection with two, unrelated criminal cases. In the first case, the arresting officer testified at a hearing, in another criminal case. In that case, the Motion Judge found that the arresting officer’s testimony was very questionable and ruled in favor of the Defendant. In this Attorney’s opinion, the arresting officer’s testimony was not credible and very misleading. In the second case, the arresting officer testified at a hearing, in another criminal case, but his testimony was contradicted by video footage showing the officer’s actual encounter with the Defendant. Therefore, the arresting officer provided very questionable testimony in relation to two other criminal cases. Prior to this trial, Attorney Noonan notified the prosecution that he intended to introduce evidence of the arresting officer’s misconduct in the two other criminal cases. At trial, the prosecution stated that they did not intend to call the arresting officer as a witness and the case was dismissed.

Plymouth District Court

IN A HIGH PROFILE CASE, PATRICK J. NOONAN WINS NOT GUILTY VERDICTS IN CASE OF STRANGULATION, ASSAULT & BATTERY, AND THREATS. CASE WAS FEATURED IN THE NEWS. 

The client, a military veteran and retired pilot with no criminal record, was charged in the Plymouth District Court with criminal complaints of Assault & Battery (G.L. c. 265, §13A), Strangulation (G.L. c. 265, §15D), and Threats to Commit a Crime (G.L. 275, §2). The charges stem from an incident between the client and a teenager over a property dispute in Marshfield. The case was featured in Channel 7 News. The teenager reported to the police that the Defendant confronted him about trespassing on his property in Marshfield. The teenager reported that the Defendant grabbed him and threw him to the ground and proceeded to choke and strangle him by the neck while repeatedly threatening to kill him.

Result: At the jury trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan effectively cross-examined the alleged victim and thoroughly attacked his credibility and revealed a multitude of contradictory information and inconsistent statements. Attorney Noonan then called his client to the witness stand. The client denied assaulting, strangling, and threatening the alleged victim. After brief deliberations, the jury quickly returned not guilty verdicts on all charges.

https://whdh.com/news/marshfield-man-acquitted-in-assault-trial/

District Court

AN ASPIRING POLICE OFFICER’S LICENSE TO CARRY FIREARMS WAS SUSPENDED FOR IMPROPERLY STORING HIS FIREARM, BUT ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN WINS REINSTATEMENT OF THE CLIENT’S LTC.

The client, a young man with no criminal record, was in the process of applying to become a police officer. The client was highly qualified for the position of police officer. The client progressed quite far in the application process. During the application process, a police officer interviewed the client at his residence. The interviewing officer requested to see where the client’s firearm was stored in his residence. The client escorted the officer to his bedroom. The officer observed that the client’s firearm was located in the drawer of his nightstand, but the firearm was not stored properly, as it was secured in a locked container or affixed with a trigger-lock. Due to the fact that the client failed to store his firearm properly in compliance with Massachusetts law, the client’s License to Carry Firearms was suspended, and his hopes of becoming a police officer was destroyed. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan appealed the suspension of the LTC and eventually won the reinstatement of the client’s LTC restoring his hopes of becoming a police officer in the future.

Wrentham District Court

ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN WINS NOT GUILTY VERDICTS IN CASE OF OPERATING UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF ALCOHOL AND NEGLIGENT OPERATION AGAINST BANKER AND FATHER OF THREE.

The client is a banker, father of three, and a resident of Mansfield with no criminal record. At approximately 2:00 a.m., a Wrentham Police Officer observed the Defendant’s vehicle exiting the parking lot of a drinking establishment in Wrentham. The officer observed that the Defendant exited the parking lot without activating his headlights. The officer followed the Defendant’s vehicle and stopped the vehicle after noticing some improper operation. After conducting several field sobriety tests, the officer concluded that the Defendant was intoxicated and arrested him for Operating under the Influence of Intoxicating Liquor and Operating Negligently (G.L. c. 90, §24).The client was charged in the Wrentham District Court.

Result: At trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan challenged the officer’s opinion that the Defendant was intoxicated. The officer testified that the Defendant performed poorly on field sobriety tests. Attorney Noonan introduced medical evidence showing that the Defendant was obese and suffered from a knee injury. Attorney Noonan moved to introduce portions of the booking video at the police station. Attorney Noonan provided the court with a chart highlighting portions of the booking video, which were consistent with the Defendant’s sobriety and lack of impairment. Attorney Noonan argued that the evidence of negligent operation was insufficient, as the officer’s observations of the vehicle’s operation was limited due to the fact that the officer stopped the Defendant’s quickly. After concluding his cross-examination of the police officer, the trial judge found the Defendant not guilty of all charges, and Attorney Noonan was able to have the client’s driver’s license reinstated the next day.

Mass. Appeals Court

Commonwealth v. Kaweesi Marvin

Docket No.: 101 Mass. App. Ct. 1119 (2022)

CLIENT WAS FOUND GUILTY OF OUI-LIQUOR AFTER TRIAL, BUT ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN WINS THE CASE ON APPEAL, THE CONVICTION IS REVERSED, AND THE CLIENT IS FOUND NOT GUILTY. CASE WAS FEATURED IN LAWYER’S WEEKLY PUBLICATION.

The client is an immigrant and not a legal U.S. citizen. While represented by another highly-experienced and effective attorney, the client was found guilty of Operating under the Influence of Alcohol after a bench-trial in the Waltham District Court. Prior counsel and the client sought Attorney Patrick J. Noonan’s services in appealing the conviction.

Result: On appeal, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan argued that the evidence of the Defendant’s intoxication was insufficient, as a matter of law, and he should have been found not guilty by the trial judge. There are very few appeals finding that evidence of intoxication was insufficient as a matter of law. In a rare case, Attorney Noonan was able to persuade the Appeals Court that the evidence of intoxication was insufficient requiring reversal of the conviction. The Appeals Court reversed the conviction and the client was subsequently found not guilty.

Plymouth Superior Court

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

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

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

Wareham District Court

ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN WINS NOT GUILTY VERDICTS IN CASE OF OPERATING UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF ALCOHOL AND NEGLIGENT OPERATION.

Client is a hard-working Haitian immigrant, a young man, newly married, who has never been in any trouble. Defendant was stopped by State Police based on the Trooper’s belief that the vehicle was being operated erratically. The Trooper observed that the Defendant’s eyes were glassy and bloodshot, his speech was slurred, and he smelled of alcohol. The Defendant was nowhere near his intended destination. The Trooper requested that the Defendant submit to field sobriety tests. The Defendant attempted the first test, but stopped, and declined to participate in any other field sobriety tests, citing an old basketball injury. Defendant was placed under arrest. The passenger in the vehicle was free to leave.

Result: During the trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan challenged the credibility of the Trooper’s testimony, particularly attacking his observations that the Defendant’s operation was erratic. Attorney Noonan elicited testimony that the Defendant committed a minor marked lanes violation, and pulled over into the breakdown lane when signaled to pull over. Attorney Noonan pointed out that the Defendant had no difficulty exiting the vehicle and no issues with his balance when standing at roadside while speaking to the officer. Attorney Noonan argued that the first field sobriety test should not be considered because the Defendant briefly attempted the test but declined to complete the test because of his basketball injury. Attorney Noonan argued that the minimal evidence regarding the Defendant’s performance of the field sobriety test did not establish that he was intoxicated or impaired. Attorney Noonan requested production of the Trooper’s body camera, which was never provided or introduced, and the defense argued that the body camera would have been helpful for his case. In addition, there was no video of the Defendant’s booking. The judge found the Defendant not guilty of all charges.

Mass. Appeals Court

Docket No.: 2022-J-0555

Commonwealth v. M.T.

DEFENDANT WAS CONVICTED AFTER A TRIAL AND SENTENCED TO SERVE 6 MONTHS IN JAIL. DEFENDANT WAS IMMEDIATELY TAKEN INTO CUSTODY. ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN PERSUADES APPEALS COURT TO STAY THE EXECUTION OF HIS SENTENCE PENDING APPEAL. CLIENT IS RELEASED WHILE HIS APPEAL IS PENDING. 

Defendant was found guilty, after a bench trial, of Larceny over $1,200 by False Pretense (G.L. c. 266, §30), a felony offense. The judge sentenced the Defendant to serve six (6) months in jail, and the Defendant was immediately taken into custody when he was sentenced. Defendant’s incarceration seriously affected his life, his business, and the custody of his minor children. Attorney Noonan requested that the Trial Judge stay the execution of his sentence, which was denied. Attorney Noonan appealed.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan filed a motion in the Appeals Court to stay the client’s sentence and release him from custody while he appeals his conviction. After a hearing, the Appeals Court agreed with Attorney Noonan that the Defendant did not present any security precautions (if released) and the Defendant had solid grounds to appeal his conviction. The client has been released. Attorney Noonan has appealed the conviction and we are awaiting a hearing in the Appeals Court.

Brockton District Court

IN A LANDMARK DECISION, ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN PROVES THAT AUXILIARY POLICE OFFICERS LACK AUTHORITY TO STOP THE DEFENDANT’S VEHICLE, SEARCH HIM, AND SEIZE HIM. THIS CASE WAS FEATURED IN LAWYER’S WEEKLY PUBLICATION FOR ITS SIGNIFICANCE. 

Defendant was operating his vehicle in the town of Whitman. Two Auxiliary Police Officers (APOs) were stationed in marked police cruisers conducting radar patrol. The APOs clocked the Defendant’s speed as 53 MPH in a 35 MPH zone. The APOs stopped the Defendant’s vehicle. The APOs suspected that the Defendant had been drinking and questioned him regarding his alcohol consumption. The APOs looked into the vehicle and observed alcoholic beverages in plain view. The APOs detained the Defendant at the scene while they contacted a sworn police officer to arrive to the scene. The sworn police officer arrived, conducted an investigation, questioned the defendant, and administered field-sobriety tests. The sworn police officer arrested the Defendant for Operating under the Influence of Liquor.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan filed a motion-to-suppress evidence resulting from the stop of the Defendant’s motor vehicle. Attorney Noonan argued that the Auxiliary Police Officers (APOs) did not have authority to effectuate motor vehicle stops, to seize or detain citizens, or to conduct searches. After conducting exhaustive research, Attorney Noonan presented evidence that there was no legal authority, which authorizes APOs to conduct traffic stops. Attorney Noonan made a request to the Whitman Police Department and the Town of Whitman for any written policies and procedures regarding APOs, but the Police Department and the Town did not produce any written policies defining the scope, duties, responsibilities, or powers of APOs. The Brockton District Court agreed with Attorney Noonan and found that the APOs lacked this authority and suppressed all evidence derived from the motor vehicle stop. This was a huge decision because many Police Departments, as part of a longstanding practice, have utilized APOs who play active roles in police investigations, but their powers were never examined. This case was featured in Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly. “Defense duo shines light on renegade auxiliary cops.”

Plymouth District Court

ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN WINS NOT GUILTY VERDICT IN OUI-DRUGS CASE ARGUING THAT THE COMMONWEALTH WAS UNABLE TO PROVE THAT THE DEFENDANT’S IMPAIRMENT WAS THE RESULT OF HIS CONSUMPTION OF MUSHROOMS. 

Defendant, a paramedic with no criminal record, was charged with Operating under the Influence of Drugs. At trial, the police officer testified that he noticed the Defendant’s vehicle parked in the middle of a residential street. Defendant was found asleep in the backseat of the vehicle. Defendant admitted to the officer that he consumed “mushrooms,” a hallucinogenic drug. Defendant was acting erratically. Defendant’s mood would dramatically fluctuate from being claim to highly emotional; randomly blurting out obscenities. The officer was very concerned about the Defendant’s state and requested an ambulance. Defendant was sent to the hospital. At trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan obtained a pretrial order preventing the officer from forming an opinion that the Defendant was under the influence of drugs. The officer did not have any training regarding the drug (mushrooms) and the specific effect of mushroom use on the human body. Therefore, the officer could not testify that the Defendant’s mushroom use was the cause of his impairment. Specifically, the officer could not testify that the symptoms exhibited by the Defendant were the result of mushroom use. The officer could not connect any displayed signs of impairment to the Defendant’s consumption of mushrooms. Therefore, the trial judge found the Defendant not guilty. 

Department of Children & Families

Fair Hearing

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

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

Brockton District Court

CLIENT’S APPLICATION FOR A LICENSE TO CARRY FIREARMS WAS DENIED DUE TO AN ARREST FOR DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, BUT ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN CONVINCES THE COURT TO REVERSE THE DECISION AND HIS CLIENT HAS BEEN ISSUED AN LTC. 

The client applied for a License to Carry Firearms. The police department denied the application because the client was arrested and charged with Assault & Battery and Assault & Battery with a Dangerous Weapon stemming from a domestic violence incident. On appeal, Attorney Noonan presented evidence that the alleged victim of the domestic violence incident recanted and changed the story she provided to the police. Further, the alleged victim submitted an Affidavit in support of the client’s application for an LTC. The criminal charges were later dismissed. The police department never interviewed the alleged victim. After a hearing in which the Firearm Licensing Officer and the Client testified, the court agreed with Attorney Noonan that the decision to deny the application was arbitrary and without reasonable ground and the court issued an order for the Police Department to issue his client a License to Carry Firearms.

Mass. Appeals Court

Docket No.: 102 Mass. App. Ct. 1106 (2023)

Commonwealth v. C.M.

APPEALS COURT AGREES WITH ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN THAT A NEW HEARING IS REQUIRED TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE DEFENDANT’S PRIOR ATTORNEY WAS INEFFECTIVE.

Defendant, represented by prior counsel, was charged with two-counts of Assault & Battery stemming from two separate incidents in which his ex-wife accused of him physically assaulting her. The case was scheduled for trial. On the advice of his prior attorney, Defendant pled guilty and was sentenced to two years of probation with the condition to complete the batterer’s program. Defendant instantly regretted pleading guilty and admitting to the allegations that he physically assaulted his ex-wife. While represented by new counsel, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan, Defendant alleged that his prior attorney made certain representations to him, which caused him to plead guilty. The issue was whether the prior attorney’s representation to the Defendant amounted to ineffective assistance of counsel, which would invalidate the Defendant’s plea. Attorney Noonan filed a Motion to Withdraw the Pleas and requested a new trial, which was denied by the plea judge. Attorney Noonan appealed the plea judge’s decision to the Massachusetts Court of Appeals, who found that it was error to deny the Defendant’s motion. The Appeals Court vacated the denial of the Defendant’s motion and ordered a new hearing in the District Court to determine whether prior counsel provided ineffective assistance of counsel. It is important to note that the Defendant has not yet proven that prior counsel was ineffective, but the Appeals Court found that the Defendant raised enough of an argument to mandate an evidentiary hearing, with testimony, to determine whether prior counsel was, in fact, ineffective..

Plymouth Superior Court

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

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

Taunton District Court

FIREFIGHTER PLEADS GUILTY TO ASSAULT & BATTERY, BUT ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN WINS NEW TRIAL AFTER PROVING THAT THE DEFENDANT’S PLEA WAS NOT MADE INTELLIGENTLY AND VOLUNTARILY.

In 2018, Defendant pled guilty to two-counts of Assault & Battery on a Family / Household Member pursuant to G.L. c. 265, §13M. As a result of his guilty plea, the Defendant lost his job as a firefighter. Defendant hired Attorney Patrick J. Noonan for the purpose of withdrawing his plea, vacating his conviction, and awarding him a trial. Attorney Noonan interviewed the Defendant regarding his decision to plead guilty, and obtained a transcript of the plea hearing. Whenever a Defendant enters a plea of guilty, the judge is required to follow certain rules to ensure that the Defendant’s plea is made intelligently and voluntarily. After thoroughly reviewing the transcript of the plea hearing, Attorney Noonan believed that the judge did not follow the proper procedure in conducting the plea. The prosecution argued that the plea hearing was properly conducted. After a hearing, the court agreed with Attorney Noonan that the plea hearing was not conducted properly, and the court vacated the convictions. The Defendant is now entitled to a trial.

Stoughton District Court

IN 2013, DEFENDANT ENTERED A PLEA ON A CHARGE OF OPERATING UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF ALCOHOL BASED ON THE RESULTS OF A BREATHALYZER TEST. ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN WON A NEW TRIAL BASED ON THE ONGOING LITIGATION REGARDING THE SCIENTIFIC RELIABILITY OF BREATHALYZER TESTS AND THE MISCONDUCT BY THE OFFICE OF ALCOHOL TESTING. AT THE NEW TRIAL, ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN WINS NOT GUILTY VERDICTS ON ALL CHARGES.

In 2012, Defendant was arrested for Operating under the Influence of Liquor. At the police station, Defendant consented to a Breathalyzer test, which produced results showing that the Defendant’s blood-alcohol-concentration was 0.14%, over the legal limit. Defendant felt that he would be found guilty at trial based on the results of the Breathalyzer test showing that he was well-above the legal limit. Defendant felt that a trial was a lost cause because the Breathalyzer results would most definitely result in his conviction. The Breathalyzer test was the biggest factor in the Defendant’s decision to enter a plea. There has been a lot of litigation in Massachusetts regarding the scientific reliability of Breathalyzer tests. Further, as part of this ongoing litigation, it was discovered that the Office of Alcohol Testing (OAT) deliberately withheld exculpatory evidence regarding Breathalyzer tests from defendants and their attorneys. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan filed a Motion to Withdraw the Plea and for New Trial on the basis that the client’s decision to enter his plea was primarily due to the results of the Breathalyzer tests, but the client was unaware (at the time of his plea) that the results of his Breathalyzer test were inadmissible as being scientifically unreliable and the client was unaware of the extensive misconduct by the Office of Alcohol Testing. The client’s plea and conviction were vacated, and the case will now be proceeding to trial. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan represented the Defendant at his new trial on charges of OUI-Liquor and Negligent Operation and won not guilty verdicts.

New Bedford District Court

CRIMINAL COMPLAINT AGAINST ELECTRICIAN FOR NEGLIGENT OPERATION OF A MOTOR VEHICLE DISMISSED PRIOR TO ARRAIGNMENT.

Defendant, an electrician, was operating his vehicle when he was involved in a single-car accident in which his vehicle struck a curb and striking a street light, knocking over the street light. The officer believed that the client was operating at a high rate of speed and lost control over his vehicle. The officer found that the road conditions did not contribute to the accident. At the scene, the client could not recall how the accident happened. The client was charged with Negligent Operation of a Motor Vehicle (G.L. c. 90, §24(2)(a)). The client’s case was scheduled for an arraignment. With an arraignment, the criminal charge would be entered onto the client’s criminal record. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan was able to dismiss the case prior to arraignment, saving him from having a criminal record.

Stoughton District Court

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

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

Quincy District Court

CRIMINAL COMPLAINT FOR LEAVING THE SCENE OF AN ACCIDENT AGAINST 62 YEAR-OLD BANKER WITH NO CRIMINAL RECORD DISMISSED PRIOR TO ARRAIGNMENT.

Client is a 62-year old woman with no criminal record. She has been working for the same bank for 42 years. On the incident in question, client was driving to her friend’s house in Weymouth. It was dark out. When she attempted to negotiate a sharp turn in the road, she struck another vehicle, causing minor damage to the vehicle. Shaken up over the minor collision, she did not stop on the dark road, but proceeded to her friend’s house who lived a short distance away. She immediately reported the incident to her insurance company. She received a phone call from a Massachusetts State Trooper where she admitted to hitting the other car and not pulling over to exchange any information with the other driver. She was charged with Leaving the Scene of an Accident causing Property Damage (G.L. c. 90, §24(2)(a)). Attorney Patrick J. Noonan provided the prosecutor with information from the client’s car insurance company, showing that the damage to the other vehicle was very minor, and confirmation that the other driver was compensated through insurance. Attorney Noonan was able to convince the Commonwealth to dismiss the case prior to arraignment, meaning that the client will not have any criminal record resulting from this incident.

Wareham District Court

CHARGE OF OPERATING WITHOUT A LICENSE AGAINST NON-U.S. CITIZEN DISMISSED PRIOR TO ARRAIGNMENT.

Client is a 34 year-old immigrant from Honduras where he lived in poverty and worked on a farm. He came to the U.S. and cannot speak any English. He is not a U.S. citizen. He was hired by a company as a physical laborer. The majority of the money he earns, he sends back to his family in Honduras. He has been living in a hotel with many other immigrants. On this occasion, as an isolated incident, the client drove his employer’s vehicle, because another employee was a no-show for work. He was pulled over. He did not have a driver’s license. He was charged with Operating without a License (G.L. c. 90, §10). Client was scheduled to be arraigned on this criminal offense. If arraigned, the criminal offense would be entered on his criminal record. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan was able to dismiss this case prior to arraignment, saving the client from having any criminal record.

Stoughton District Court

ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN VACATES A CONVICTION FOR DOMESTIC ASSAULT & BATTERY FROM 1963 AGAINST 83 YEAR-OLD KINGSTON MAN.

Defendant was convicted in 1963 after having pled guilty to committing an Assault & Battery on his then-wife. Defendant, now 83 years-old, applied for a License to Carry Firearms but was automatically disqualified due to the domestic violence conviction. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan moved the court to vacate the conviction in the interests of justice, and the Court agreed. Now that the conviction is vacated, the client is eligible to apply for a License to Carry Firearms.

Taunton District Court

ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN IS SUCCESSFUL IN SUPPRESSING EVIDENCE OBTAINED PURSUANT TO AN ILLEGAL SEARCH WARRANT RESULTING IN THE DISMISSAL OF 20 CRIMINAL CHARGES.

A multi-department investigation was conducted utilizing the services of a Confidential Informant (CI) – who alleged that the Defendant had sold cocaine to him in the past on numerous occasions in the town of Norwood. The Confidential Informant participated in five (5) controlled buys with the Defendant for the purchase of cocaine. In each buy, the CI claimed that it had purchased cocaine from the Defendant. Based on the information supplied by the CI and in conjunction with the five (5) controlled buys, the police applied for, and obtained, a search warrant to search the Defendant’s home in Easton. When the police executed the search warrant, they found numerous large-capacity firearms, large-capacity ammunition, narcotics, cocaine, plastic baggies, scales, and large sums of cash, and some counterfeit money. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan filed a Motion to Suppress all evidence obtained in connection with the execution of the search warrant – arguing that the information in the Search Warrant Affidavit was insufficient to establish probable cause to believe that drugs would be located in the target premises. In particular, Attorney Noonan argued that the information supplied by the CI, and the five controlled-buys, did not establish a nexus between the Defendant’s drug-selling activities and the target premises. The Court agreed and allowed the Motion to Suppress. As all evidence has been suppressed, all criminal charges, 20 criminal charges, will be dismissed.

Quincy District Court

FELONY LARCENY DISMISSED UPON WITNESS AFFIDAVIT STATING THAT DEFENDANT RETURNED THE ALLEGEDLY STOLEN ITEM TO THE POLICE.

Defendant went to Walmart. When entering the store, there was a person sitting at a table soliciting charitable donations, and Defendant observed a cell phone on the floor in the vicinity of this person. Surveillance video shows the Defendant picking up the phone, looking at it, putting it in his pocket, and leaving the store after finishing his shopping. Defendant was called by a police officer who instructed him to return the cell phone to the police station. If he returned the cell phone to the police station, the officer stated that he would not charge the Defendant with a crime. The officer alleged that the Defendant never returned the cell phone and the officer charged him with Larceny from Person (G.L. c. 266, §25(b)).Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan provided the prosecutor with an affidavit from a witness attesting to the fact that the Defendant returned the cell phone to the police station. The witness was present with the Defendant when he returned the cell phone to the police station. Based upon the evidence presented by Attorney Noonan, the Commonwealth dismissed the case.

Taunton District Court

FELONY OFFENSE OF OBTAINING DRUGS BY FRAUD DISMISSED PRIOR TO ARRAIGNMENT FOR INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE.

Defendant was charged with the felony offense of Obtaining Drugs by Fraud (G.L. c. 94C, §33(b)). Defendant’s ex-boyfriend called the police to report that the Defendant went to the CVS pharmacy and fraudulently obtained medication in his name. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan reviewed the evidence, and conducted legal research, and learned that the Commonwealth would be unable to prove an essential element of the offense. To prove this offense, the Commonwealth must present evidence that the substance in question is a “controlled substance.” Attorney Noonan provided the prosecutor with evidence that the substance in question was NOT a controlled substance. As such, the Commonwealth would be unable to prove this charge at trial. The Commonwealth dismissed the felony offense prior to arraignment, and the Defendant was arraigned on a misdemeanor offense of Larceny under $1,200 (G.L. c. 266, §30(1)). Attorney Noonan is in the process of preparing this case for trial.

Lawrence District Court

ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN WINS NOT GUILTY VERDICTS ON ALL CHARGES, INCLUDING SERIOUS FIREARMS CHARGES CARRYING MINIMUM-MANDATORY JAIL SENTENCES. 

Defendant was charged with Carrying a Firearm without a License (G.L. c. §269, §10(a)), Carrying a Loaded Firearm without a License (G.L. c. 269, §10(n)), Carrying a Dangerous Weapon (G.L. c. 269, §10(b)), and Operating a Vehicle with a Suspended License (G.L. c. 90, §23). If convicted of Carrying a Firearm without a License, Defendant faced a minimum-mandatory jail sentence of 18 months, and another minimum-mandatory sentence of 2.5 years in jail if convicted of Carrying a Loaded Firearm without a License.

Result: Defendant was a resident of New Hampshire. He left his home in New Hampshire to visit a friend in Lawrence. While returning home to New Hampshire, after visiting his friend, Defendant was stopped by a State Trooper in Methuen because of a non-working headlight. Upon the stop, the Trooper learned that the Defendant had a suspended Massachusetts driver’s license and placed him under arrest. While arresting him, the Trooper located a loaded handgun in the Defendant’s pant pocket. Under a new decision announced by the Supreme Judicial Court in Massachusetts, in order to prove the firearm offenses, the Commonwealth must present evidence that the Defendant did not have a valid firearms license. Commonwealth v. Guardado, 491 Mass. 666 (2023) At trial, the Commonwealth called a witness from the Department of Criminal Justice Information Services (CJIS), which is responsible for maintaining a database of all persons issued firearm licenses in Massachusetts. This witness testified that she was provided with the Defendant’s name and his Date of Birth. When the witness entered the Defendant’s first name, last name, and DOB, into the database, the results disclosed that there was no record of the Defendant having ever been issued a firearm license in Massachusetts. In a surprise attack at trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan presented evidence that the Commonwealth did not provide CJIS with the proper name for the Defendant. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan successfully argued that the Commonwealth failed to prove that the Defendant did not have a valid firearms license in Massachusetts because CJIS was not provided with the correct name for the Defendant. Under cross-examination, the witness from CJIS testified that she did not enter the Defendant’s correct name into the database. Further, Attorney Noonan argued that the Defendant was a resident of New Hampshire, had a New Hampshire address, had a New Hampshire driver’s license, and had his motor vehicle registered in New Hampshire. Attorney Noonan argued that the Commonwealth did not conduct any record-searches to determine whether the Defendant had any firearm licenses issued to him in New Hampshire, or whether the Defendant’s firearm was registered in New Hampshire, or whether the Defendant was legally permitted to own and possess this firearm in New Hampshire. After two-hours of deliberation, the jury found the Defendant Not Guilty of all charges, and the Defendant was free to leave.

Brockton District Court

ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN WINS DISMISSAL OF ALL CHARGES, INCLUDING SIX FIREARM CHARGES, CARRYING MINIMUM-MANDATORY JAIL SENTENCES, AND ANOTHER COUNT OF RESISTING ARREST.

Defendant was charged with seven criminal offenses, including: Two-counts of Carrying a Firearm without a License (G.L. c. §269, §10(a)), two-counts of Carrying a Loaded Firearm without a License (G.L. c. 269, §10(n)), Possession of Firearm without F.I.D. (G.L. c. 269, §10(h)), Possession of Ammunition without F.I.D. (G.L. c. 269, §10(h)(1), Improper Storage of a Firearm (G.L. c. 140, §131L), and Resisting Arrest (G.L. c. 268, §32B). If convicted, Defendant was facing serious minimum-mandatory jail time and deportation from the United States.

Result: Defendant was a front-seat passenger in a vehicle, which was wanted in connection with a drive-by shooting in Boston. About a week after the shooting, State Troopers observed the suspect vehicle and attempted to pull it over, but a high-speed chase ensued from Milton to Brockton, which ultimately ended with the suspect vehicle crashing into an intersection in Brockton. Police observed a loose pistol magazine at the feet of the operator. In the glove compartment, located in the passenger side area where the Defendant had been seated, police found two firearms, a large capacity firearm, and ammunition. Police alleged that the Defendant resisted arrest when they commanded him to exit the passenger side of the vehicle. The operator and defendant-passenger were charged with a multitude of firearm offenses and resisting arrest. At a suppression hearing, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan elicited evidence from the State Trooper, which would prove to be vital to the Defendant’s case at trial. The glove-compartment, where the firearms were stored, was locked and the Defendant did not have possession of the key. Troopers admitted that they did not observe the Defendant reach for or touch the glove-compartment, and Troopers did not see the Defendant attempt to hide or conceal evidence. Although they claimed that the Defendant resisted arrest, Attorney Noonan was able to get that charge dismissed for insufficient evidence. No fingerprints were lifted from the firearms or ammunition. On the day of trial, the co-defendant (operator of the vehicle) pled guilty to most of the charges, but Attorney Noonan remained steadfast that his client was innocent and refused to enter into any plea negotiations. Recognizing that Attorney Noonan was prepared, ready, willing and able to try this case, the prosecutor dismissed all charges against the Defendant.

Brockton District Court

ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN WINS NOT GUILTY VERDICTS IN DRUNK DRIVING AND NEGLIGENT OPERATION TRIAL.

Defendant was charged with Operating under the Influence of Alcohol (G.L. c. 90, §24(1)(a)(1)), Negligent Operation of a Motor Vehicle (G.L. c. 90, §24(2)(a)), and Operating without a License (G.L. c. 90, §10). Defendant was a 25 year-old with no criminal record. Police were called to the scene of a single-car accident. An off-duty EMT testified at trial that he observed the Defendant travel through an intersection, at a high rate of speed, and strike a curb and telephone pole. Upon arrival, the officer spoke with the Defendant, who was the operator of the vehicle. The officer detected an odor of alcohol on her breath. The officer testified that the Defendant was unable to recall how the accident happened. The officer observed that her eyes were red, bloodshot, and glassy. Police recovered an empty bottle of liquor in the center console. Defendant was administered the Nine-Step Walk & Turn and One Leg Stand field-sobriety test, and the officer testified that she failed these tests. Defendant admitted to consuming three glasses of champagne about two hours ago.

Result: At trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan emphasized that the Defendant’s poor performance on the field-sobriety tests were very understandable considering the circumstances. For example, Defendant was involved in a serious car accident. The airbag deployed striking her in the face, causing injuries to her nose and lip, which were bleeding. Defendant was emotional, crying, and was repeatedly expressing concern for her passenger, who was injured in the crash. Defendant was asked to perform these field-sobriety tests with four police officers on scene, three police cruisers on scene, and a fire truck surrounding her. The officer admitted that she was shook-up and frazzled by the accident. Attorney Noonan introduced evidence that the Defendant went to the emergency room after her arrest complaining of chest pain and rib pain. Despite all this, Defendant still performed relatively well on the field-sobriety tests, under these harsh circumstances. Attorney Noonan was able to suppress the empty liquor bottle from coming into evidence at trial because the prosecutor was unable to bring in the police officer who located the bottle in the vehicle, and they would be unable to authenticate this piece of evidence. Attorney Noonan aggressively argued that the Police Department was grossly negligent because they lost the video recording of the Defendant’s booking at the police station following her arrest. Attorney Noonan persuaded the trial judge to instruct the jury that they could infer that the lost booking video would have been favorable to the Defendant’s case. Attorney Noonan was successful in dismissing the unlicensed operation charge because the Commonwealth’s RMV records did not contain the date in which her license was suspended. After one-hour of deliberations, the jury found the Defendant not guilty of all charges and her driver’s license was restored.

Fitchburg District Court

CLIENT’S LTC DENIED WAS DUE TO FELONY CONVICTION AND UNTRUTHFULNESS, BUT ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN WINS APPEAL, REVERSING THE DENIAL, AND AN LTC HAS BEEN ISSUED TO THE CLIENT. 

Client applied for a License to Carry Firearms, but the police department denied his application on the grounds that the client had a disqualifying felony conviction from Florida, and THAT the client was untruthful on the application when he denied that he had ever been convicted of a felony. On appeal, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan obtained all records relating to the client’s criminal case in Florida. In the Florida case, client was charged with Grand Theft and received a disposition known as Adjudication Withheld. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan conducted legal research showing that a disposition of Adjudication Withheld does not constitute a conviction under Florida law or Massachusetts law. Attorney Noonan argued that his client was not untruthful on the application because he correctly disclosed that he had not been convicted of a felony because, legally, the disposition in his Florida case did not constitute a conviction. After a hearing, including testimony, and after consideration of Attorney Noonan’s legal arguments, the judge reversed the decision denying the client’s LTC and ordered the police department to issue him a License to Carry Firearms.

Taunton District Court

ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN’S MOTION TO DISMISS CHARGES OF LEAVING THE SCENE OF AN ACCIDENT AND OPERATING WITH A SUSPENDED LICENSE SUBSEQUENT OFFENSE IS ALLOWED.

Defendant was charged with Leaving the Scene of an Accident (G.L. c. 90, §24(2)(a)) and Operating with a Suspended License Subsequent Offense (G.L. c. 90, §23), stemming from a hit-and-run car accident, which resulted in injuries to the operator and occupants of another vehicle. A witness reported to the police that he had witnessed the accident and was actively following the vehicle, which fled the scene. The witness later sent photographs to police of the fleeing vehicle. Police circulated pictures of the vehicle amongst various police departments. One police department reported being familiar with the suspect vehicle as belonging to the Defendant based on prior interactions. Police went to the Defendant’s home and observed damage to a vehicle in his driveway. Defendant denied operating the vehicle. The police noted that the Defendant had multiple prior convictions for operating with a suspended driver’s license. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan filed a Motion to Dismiss the charges for lack of probable cause, arguing that the police report did not contain sufficient evidence to prove that the Defendant was the operator of the vehicle. After considering the arguments, the court allowed Attorney Patrick J. Noonan’s Motion to Dismiss.

CLIENT’S APPLICATION FOR A LICENSE TO CARRY FIREARMS WAS DENIED DUE TO UNTRUTHFULNESS IN DISCLOSING HIS CRIMINAL HISTORY, BUT ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN WON APPEAL, REVERSING THE DENIAL, AND AN LTC HAS BEEN ISSUED TO THE CLIENT.

In 2016, client had his License to Carry Firearms suspended because he was arrested and charged with domestic violence, which was later dismissed. The criminal case was later sealed. Client, with another attorney, appealed the 2016 LTC suspension, and lost. In 2023, client reapplied for a License to Carry Firearms, which was denied. Client hired Attorney Patrick J. Noonan to appeal the denial. At the hearing, the officer testified that the client filled out the application form untruthfully. On the application, client was asked whether he had ever been arrested or appeared in court for any criminal case, and the client answered “yes.” However, the application form required the applicant to provide the details and circumstances of the criminal case, but the client did not provide any description of the criminal case. The officer believed that the client was being untruthful because he did not provide any description of the criminal case. After submitting the application, the client was interviewed by the police officer. When asked about his criminal history, the client told the officer that the criminal case was “sealed,” a truthful statement. The officer was able to obtain a copy of the police report on his criminal case. When asked about the incident resulting in his arrest, the client was truthful, not evasive and answered all the officer’s questions. Attorney Noonan argued that the client fulfilled his obligation by answering in the affirmative, on the application, regarding his criminal history. Attorney Noonan argued that the application form was vague because the application form did not state that the applicant was required to provide information on “sealed” criminal cases. To prove that the client was truthful, Attorney Noonan elicited testimony from the officer that, during the interview, the client was truthful when questioned about his arrest. The court agreed with Attorney Noonan, reversed the decision denying his LTC, and issued an order for the police department to issue him an LTC.

COMMONWEALTH SEEKS TO JAIL THE DEFENDANT FOR 90 DAYS FOR COMMITTING NEW CRIMES WHILE ON BAIL FOR PENDING CRIMINAL CHARGES AGAINST THE SAME VICTIM BUT ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN WINS HIS CLIENT’S RELEASE.

Defendant, a West Bridgewater resident, was arraigned in the Plymouth District Court on the following charges involving his ex-girlfriend: Assault and Battery (G.L. c. 265, §13A), Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon (G.L. c. 265, §15A), and Stalking (G.L. c. 265, §43). At his arraignment, Defendant was ordered not to contact the ex-girlfriend. On the day of his arraignment, the ex-girlfriend obtained an Abuse Prevention Restraining Order (G.L. c. 209A) against the Defendant, which ordered him not to contact her, to stay away from her, and to not abuse her.

On 11.16.19, the ex-girlfriend reported to the police that the Defendant violated the restraining order in many different ways: First, she provided police with a phone call the Defendant made to her, Second, she provided police with two text messages he sent her, Third, she claimed that the Defendant contacted her friend on Facebook, and Fourth, Defendant was driving around in the parking lot of her place of employment where he got into a car accident with her co-worker and told the co-worker to lie about the accident because he knew he would get in trouble if authorities found out that he was in the parking lot of her place of employment. As a result, police charged the Defendant with three-counts of Violation of an Abuse Prevention Order (G.L. c. 209A, §7)

At his arraignment on the new charges, the prosecution filed a Motion to Revoke Bail (under G.L. c. 276, §58) and requested holding the Defendant in jail, without bail, for a period of ninety (90) days because: Defendant violated a condition of his release, Defendant committed a new crime while on release, Defendant’s release will endanger the community, and there are no conditions of release that the Defendant is likely to abide by. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan convinced the judge to release his client on certain conditions, including GPS monitoring.

IN DOMESTIC ASSAULT & BATTERY TRIAL, ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN CONVINCES TRIAL JUDGE TO SUPPRESS FROM EVIDENCE THE VICTIM’S 911 CALL TO POLICE FORCING THE PROSECUTION TO DISMISS THE CASE.

Defendant, a resident of Needham, was in a dating relationship with a woman. The woman, who resides in Dedham, called 911 and reported that the Defendant punched her in the face and punched her in the eye. In the 911, she is very upset, she is distraught, she is very emotional, she is afraid, she is breathing heavy, and she is crying. When the police arrived to her residence, the Defendant had already left. Police observed that the right side of her face was swollen and she had marks on her neck, marks on her right shoulder, and marks on her right arm. Police took photos of her injuries. She gave police the Defendant’s license plate and they searched for his vehicle. Eventually, police stopped the Defendant in Needham. Defendant told police that the victim became upset with him because he was talking to another woman on the phone and the victim threw a TV remote at him and struck him. He denied hitting her. He admitted to leaving the house when she called 911 because he was afraid of getting in trouble. The Dedham Police arrested him. Defendant was charged with Assault & Battery on a Family / Household Member (G.L. c. 265, § 13M).

Result: During the pretrial stages, the alleged victim told the District Attorney’s Office that nothing happened, the Defendant did not hit her, Defendant did nothing wrong, she made everything up, and she didn’t want to press charges. She refused to testify at trial. Despite her statements and lack of cooperation, the prosecution refused to dismiss the case and sought to have a trial and convict the Defendant. The prosecution sought to prove the case at trial without the testimony of the victim by introducing the 911 tape and introducing the photos of her injuries. At trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan filed a Motion in Limine to exclude the victim’s 911 call. The Trial Judge found that the 911 call was admissible as an excited utterance but Attorney Noonan argued that the 911 tape was not admissible under the United States Supreme Court case of Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004). After a hearing, the Trial Judge agreed with Attorney Noonan and suppressed the 911 tape from evidence and the prosecution was forced to dismiss the case.

DEFENDANT’S EX-GIRLFRIEND REPORTS TO POLICE THAT SHE WAS RAPED WHILE INTOXICATED AND UNCONSCIOUS. AFTER CLIENT CONTACTS THE NOONAN DEFENSE TEAM, NO CRIMINAL CHARGES ARE ISSUED.

The alleged victim (“AV”), a female, had been in a dating relationship with the Defendant for two years. In July 2019, AV went to the Police Department and claimed that she was raped by the Defendant during Father’s Day Weekend at his parent’s timeshare condominium. She told investigators that the Defendant raped her while she was unconscious. She claimed that she was intoxicated by alcohol, passed out, and when she awakened the next morning, she had significant vaginal bleeding and came to the realization that she was raped. Investigators contacted the Defendant and sought to interview him but his family contacted the Noonan Defense Team. Quickly, the Noonan Defense Team had the Defendant’s cell phone forensically examined to include all correspondence with A.V. The phone correspondence spanned their entire relationship and included correspondence following the alleged rape. The Noonan Defense Team met with the detective and presented evidence of his client’s innocence, which included: A.V. claimed that she was raped on Father’s Day weekend at the timeshare condo of the Defendant’s family. She claimed that she was raped on Saturday night. However, on Sunday morning, A.V. had breakfast with the Defendant’s entirely family. The Defense Team interviewed the family members who were present at the condo. The family members consistently stated that A.V. appeared perfectly fine and normal on Sunday. She did not present with any signs of being raped. She was sociable, personable, and affectionate with the Defendant. She left after Sunday breakfast and she sent the Defendant a text message on Sunday (the day after the alleged rape) stating how much she wished she could stay at the condo with him. On the following Tuesday, Defendant broke up with A.V. but she refused to accept the breakup. On Tuesday, in the immediate aftermath of the breakup, A.V. traveled back down to the Defendant’s condo. Therefore, three days after the alleged rape, A.V. goes back to the condo (where she was allegedly raped) to spend more time with the Defendant and to persuade him not to break up with her. She was successful and their dating relationship resumed. In July, Defendant broke up with A.V. for the second time and she became enraged. In a text message following the breakup, she threatened to call the police on him to get her property back. She had purchased gifts and things for the Defendant during the course of their relationship and she was demanding the return of those items or else she would call the police. Interestingly, A.V. threatened to call the police, not to report any rape, but to get her stuff back from him. Defendant then blocked A.V.’s phone number and blocked her on Facebook, which enraged her further. Because she was blocked, she sent a text message to the Defendant from a different number. In this message, she stated that she wanted to be friends and she wanted the Defendant to contact her. She did not mention any rape or any inappropriate conduct by the Defendant. Defendant answered by stating that he no longer wished to be friends with her and stated that he would not contact her. The next day, angered by the Defendant’s response, she went to the police station claiming that she was raped. The Noonan Defense Team provided the text messages to law enforcement. The text messages showed that A.V. never mentioned the rape in any of her text messages to the Defendant the weekend of the incident. She never even alleged in any text messages that the Defendant had done anything inappropriate to her. The text messages showed that A.V. had a very obsessive personality. She would contact the Defendant incessantly, sometimes contacting him over 80 times in one day. When the Defendant did not immediately reply to her contacts, she would become upset with the Defendant. As a result of the investigation by the Noonan Defense Team, no criminal charges are issued against the Defendant. He has no record. Defendant was facing the following penalties: A conviction for Rape (G.L. c. 265, §22) carries a maximum sentence of life in State Prison, a conviction for Indecent Assault & Battery on a person over the age of 14 carries a sentence of maximum sentence of 5 years in State Prison, or 2 and ½ years in the House of Correction.

ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN WINS NOT GUILTY VERDICT IN 2ND OFFENSE OUI-LIQUOR TRIAL DESPITE CIVILIAN WITNESS TESTIFYING TO DEFENDANT’S DANGEROUS OPERATION, A WASHER MACHINE FELL OFF THE BACK OF DEFENDANT’S TRUCK, POLICE FOUND TWO NIPS BOTTLES IN DEFENDANT’S POCKETS AND A RUM BOTTLE IN HIS CENTER-CONSOLE AND THE OFFICER TESTIFIED THAT THE DEFENDANT WAS INTOXICATED.

At trial in the Brockton District Court, a civilian witness testified that she called 911 to report the erratic operation of the Defendant’s vehicle in Brockton. She testified that the Defendant’s truck nearly struck her vehicle. Alarmed by his operation, she turned around, followed Defendant’s vehicle and called 911. Brockton Police encountered the Defendant’s vehicle at a four-way intersection in Brockton. Officers observed the Defendant quickly accelerate through the intersection, causing a washer machine to fall off the back of the Defendant’s truck, landing in the intersection. Officers approached the Defendant’s vehicle and removed him from the truck. Officers observed a Rum bottle in the center-console that was partially empty. Officers found two Fireball nip bottles in the Defendant’s pant pockets. The Officer testified that the Defendant had an odor of alcohol on his breath, he momentarily lost his balance, and, in the officer’s opinion, Defendant was intoxicated. Defendant had a prior conviction for OUI-Liquor and he was charged with Operating under the Influence of Liquor (2nd offense). See G.L. c. 90, §24. A conviction for a second-offense OUI carries the following penalties: up to 2 ½ years in jail, possibility of two years of probation, 14-day inpatient treatment, and two-year loss of license. In this case, Defendant’s driver’s license was suspended for three years because he refused the Breathalyzer test. Rather than take a plea deal, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan brought the case to trial.

Result: After a two-day jury trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan attacked the prosecution’s case. The prosecution called two police officers to testify against the Defendant. However, Attorney Noonan called a police officer witness of his own. Specifically, Attorney Noonan called the Lieutenant who booked the Defendant. The Lieutenant outranked and had more experience than the two officers who testified for the prosecution. The Lieutenant testified that he was unable to form an opinion that the Defendant was intoxicated. In fact, on cross-examination of one of the prosecution’s officers, Attorney Noonan got the prosecution’s own officer to testify that he did not form an opinion that the Defendant was intoxicated. In his closing, Attorney Noonan argued that two out of the three officers who testified in the case did not, or could not, form an opinion that the Defendant was intoxicated. Attorney Noonan called the Defendant’s cousin as a witness and he testified that the Rum bottle, in the Defendant’s vehicle, belonged to him, and not the Defendant. The jury found the Defendant not guilty.

NOONAN DEFENSE TEAM WINS NOT GUILTY VERDICT AGAINST DIRECT-CARE WORKER CHARGED WITH PHYSICALLY ASSAULTING AN INTELLECTUALLY DISABLED PERSON IN HIS CARE AT A GROUP HOME.

Defendant, a Quincy resident, and immigrant from Haiti with no criminal record, was employed as a Direct Care Worker at a Group Home for individuals with developmental and intellectual disabilities. On October 27, 2017, a woman was stopped at a stop sign across the street from the Group Home. The woman called 911 to report that a young man (alleged victim) ran out the front door of the Group Home. She reported that a black male (defendant) grabbed the young man by the neck and dragged him into the house. A police officer arrived to the Group Home. The officer looked into the window of the front door and observed the Defendant with his hand grasped around the rear of the victim’s neck and pushed him up the stairs. The alleged victim suffered from various intellectual disabilities. As a result, the police officer arrested and charged the Defendant with Assault and Battery on a Disabled Person (G.L. c. 265, §13K), a felony offense carrying a maximum sentence of 5 years in State Prison, or 2 and ½ years in the House of Correction.

Result: Patrick J. Noonan, Brendan J. Noonan, and the Noonan Defense immediately conducted an investigation in preparation of trial. The Defense Team interviewed the woman who allegedly observed the assault on the victim. Although the woman reported to 911 that she observed the defendant grab the victim by neck, her statements to the defense were very different and exculpatory. The woman told the Defense Team that she did not see any physical contact between the Defendant and the Victim. At trial, the prosecution did not call the woman as a witness. At trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan cross-examined the police officer as to his observations of the alleged assault. The officer admitted that he made his observations through a “stained glass window,” making it difficult for him to make out precisely what was happening. The officer also admitted that he only observed the incident for approximately 1-2 seconds. The officer also admitted that he was unsure if the Defendant’s hand was grasped at the rear of the victim’s neck, or if the Defendant’s hand was placed on the victim’s upper back. The Noonan Defense Team introduced evidence that the Defendant was legally justified in using reasonable force to prevent the victim from injuring himself. Specifically, our team introduced evidence that the victim attempted to escape from the residence and run into the street but our client used reasonable force to prevent him from escaping and injuring himself. The victim had a history of eloping from the residence. The victim’s mother was concerned about the victim eloping and running into the busy street and injuring himself. The Group Home was located on a State Highway where vehicles drove by at speeds exceeding 50 MPH. The front door of the Group Home was very close to the State Highway. It was only 15-20 feet from the front door to the State Highway. There was no fencing to prevent the victim from running into the street. The victim had no safety awareness. The Lead Clinician from the Group Home testified that force may be necessary to prevent the victim from running into the busy street and injuring himself. The police officer testified that there had been major accidents and fatalities on this State Highway. Due to the victim’s history of elopement and the potential danger of him running into the street, the Group Home was supposed to implement door alarms but they never did. In addition, the Noonan Defense Team introduced evidence that the Defendant was legally justified in using reasonable force on the victim to prevent injury to another resident who also had disabilities. In particular, the victim had attacked this other resident several times on the date of this incident. The victim ran at the other resident, attacked the other resident, and physically struck the other resident. The other resident, a large man, was known to be volatile when agitated. The Group Home would not even attempt to restrain the other resident when he became agitated and their policy was to call 911 rather than attempt a restraint due to his size and capability of injuring others. Here, the Defendant acted reasonably in restraining the victim for the safety of the other resident who the victim had previously attacked. Finally, the Defense Team introduced evidence of the victim’s history of violent behavior. Prior to this incident, the victim was so violent that three staff employees were required to restrain him. During this incident, the Group Home was understaffed because two employees left the home to go grocery shopping, leaving the Defendant and one other employee as the only staff present to supervise all the residents in the home. After a two-day jury trial, the jury found the Defendant not guilty.

RESTRAINING ORDER AGAINST UNCLE FOR ALLEGED SEXUAL ABUSE OF CHILD-NIECE VACATED OVER OBJECTION OF PLAINTIFF.

Defendant, a middle-age man with no criminal record, had an Abuse Prevention Restraining Order (209A) taken out against him by his sister. His sister alleged that the Defendant sexually abused her daughter who was 7 years-old at the time. Defendant’s prior attorney contested the restraining order at a very lengthy hearing, which included testimony of several witnesses, including the sister who brought the restraining order. After the hearing, the judge found sufficient evidence of “abuse” of the child and issued the restraining order for six-months. After the restraining order was issued, Defendant hired Attorney Patrick J. Noonan. In September 2019, the sister sought to extend the restraining order for one-year.

Result: At the hearing to extend the restraining order for one-year, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan presented evidence that the police investigated the sister’s allegations that the Defendant sexually abused her minor child and, after conducting an investigation, the police department determined that there was no evidence to charge the Defendant with a crime. Therefore, the sister’s allegations were not deemed to be sufficient enough to bring any criminal charges against the Defendant, even under the low standard of probable cause to charge somebody with a crime. Moreover, Attorney Noonan cross-examined the sister and presented evidence regarding her motive to make this false allegation against the Defendant. Mainly, the sister and her children were living with the Defendant, at his home, rent free. After an argument, Defendant kicked his sister and her children out of his house leaving her with no place to live. Upset over the argument, the sister went to the police department to obtain a restraining order against the Defendant wherein she sought to have the Defendant evicted from his own home so she could move back into his house and have a place to live, rent free. The Judge originally issued the restraining order because the sister testified that the District Attorney’s Office was investigating her allegations of sexual abuse but Attorney Noonan presented evidence that there was no evidence for authorities to charge him with a crime.

WITNESS INTIMIDATION: NOT GUILTY
THREATS: NOT GUILTY
ASSAULT & BATTERY with DANGEROUS WEAPON: NOT GUILTY
ASSAULT & BATTERY with DANGEROUS WEAPON: NOT GUILTY
ASSAULT & BATTERY with DANGEROUS WEAPON: GUILTY

Defendant, and five other Defendants, were employees at a juvenile detention center, which housed juveniles who had been adjudicated delinquent (or found guilty) for crimes and sentenced to serve sentences. The juveniles claimed that the Defendants would regularly threaten them, sexually abuse them, and physically abuse them. The juveniles claimed that the Defendants engaged in a ritualistic form of abuse known as “orange chicken” to punish or discipline them. The orange chicken assault involved the juvenile’s underwear being pulled down and getting smacked on the bare buttocks with an orange rubber sandal. If a juvenile complied with the orange chicken, the punishment would be less severe but if they resisted the assault would more severe. Defendants instructed other juveniles to participate in administering orange chicken assaults to other juveniles. The abuse was not limited to orange chicken assaults, as the juveniles described other forms of physical and sexual abuse by the Defendants. The Department of Children and Families and the Massachusetts State Police conducted an extensive investigation, which resulted in the juvenile facility being completely shut down. The District Attorney’s Office conducted an extensive grand jury investigation, which involved the testimony of juveniles, employees, law enforcement, and resulted in the production of thousands of pages of records and documents.

Result:

Defendant was charged with Witness Intimidation (G.L. c. 268, §13B) to Victim #1 based on Victim #1’s testimony that the Defendants engaged in conduct designed to prevent the juveniles from reporting the abuse. Specifically, the Defendants threatened to put a “green light” on a juvenile if they reported the abuse. A “green light” meant that if a juvenile reported abuse they would be attacked at any other juvenile facility they went to because the Defendants had connections with other facilities. At the close of the Commonwealth’s case, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan had a Not Guilty finding entered on the Witness Intimidation charge because the Commonwealth failed to present sufficient evidence against his client.

Defendant was charged with Threats (G.L. c. 275, §2) to Victim #1 based on Victim #1’s testimony that Defendants threatened to give Victim #1 an orange chicken assault, if Victim #1 did not participate in orange chicken assaults on other juveniles. At trial, Attorney Noonan impeached Victim #1 with prior statements he made where he told police he didn’t recall being told that if he did not participate in orange chicken, he would be next. The most important piece of evidence that won an acquittal on the Threats charge was Attorney Noonan’s cross-examination of Victim #1 where he got Victim #1 to admit that his client never made any such threat to him.

Defendant was charged with Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon (G.L. c. 265, §15A) on Victim #2 based on Victim #2’s testimony that the Defendant assaulted him in the laundry room, forcibly pulled down his pants, and beat him on the bare buttocks with a sandal. Attorney Noonan presented evidence that Victim #2 had falsely accused another staff member of assaulting him in the laundry room during this same incident.

Specifically, Victim #1 testified at the grand jury that this other staff member assaulted him in the laundry and Victim #1 even sued this other staff member for assaulting him in the laundry room. However, when questioned about the incident in the laundry room, Victim #2 admitted that the other staff was not involved. Moreover, Attorney Noonan questioned the facility’s program director at trial who stated that she viewed surveillance video from the laundry room area on the date of the incident and there was no video to corroborate Victim #2’s allegations that the Defendant assaulted him in the laundry room. The police even viewed the video, which did not show any evidence that the Defendant assaulted him in the laundry room. Lastly, Victim #2 claimed that after the assault in the laundry room, he was discharged from the facility. Attorney Noonan presented evidence that Victim #2 met with his case worker shortly after the alleged assault in the laundry room and he did not say anything to his case worker about it.

Defendant was charged with Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon on Victim #3 based on the testimony of a former employee who testified that he witnessed the Defendant beat Victim #3 with a sandal in the cafeteria. The Commonwealth gave this former employee immunity to testify against all defendants. This former employee testified that he personally participated in the assault on Victim #3 in the cafeteria and he witnessed the Defendant participating in the assault. However, during Victim #3’s trial testimony, he testified that the Defendant was present for the incident in the cafeteria but he could not recall if the Defendant participated. During his closing argument, Attorney Noonan cited the law, which states that “no defendant…shall be convicted solely on the basis of the testimony of…a person granted immunity.” G.L. c. 233, §20I. Attorney Noonan argued that the only evidence of the Defendant involvement in the assault and battery on Victim #3 came from the testimony of an immunized witness. Attorney Noonan argued and the Commonwealth failed to prove the Defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, as the Commonwealth did not present any other evidence to corroborate the testimony of its immunized witness.

Defendant was charged with Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon on Victim #3 based on Victim #3’s testimony that the Defendant choked him with a wooden drumstick in the hallway. The jury convicted the Defendant on this one and only charge. However, Attorney Noonan presented evidence that there were cameras that would have captured the incident in the hallway and the program director testified that she did not see any video footage of any assault on Victim #3 in the hallway. Moreover, Victim #3 testified that he assaulted the Defendant for no reason. Attorney Noonan argued that the Defendant was legally entitled to use force to restrain juveniles in the course of his employment and he had a right to act in self-defense. Attorney Noonan cited the testimony of another employee who stated that “restraints” on juveniles’ are difficult to perform alone without any assistance from other employees. This employee testified that it is very difficult to perform a “restraint” in the manner they are trained to do where a juvenile violently attacks an employee and an employee has to do whatever he can to restrain the juvenile. In this case, Defendant was violently attacked by Victim #3 who was known to be violent and had previously attacked other juveniles and staff. The Commonwealth did not present evidence of the entire incident or the full picture of what happened. How can the Commonwealth say that the Defendant’s force to restrain Victim #3 was unreasonable when there were so many unanswered questions about what actually happened? How can it be said that the Defendant’s restraint was excessive when the Commonwealth did not any present evidence with regards to the severity of Victim #3’s assault on the Defendant? Defendant’s response would be appropriate if he was faced with a violent assault by a violent person.

At the end of this lengthy trial, the jury acquitted the Defendant on all charges, except for one.

CHARGE OF ASSAULT WITH INTENT TO MURDER AGAINST MARINE CORPS VETERAN WITH SEVERE MENTAL ILLNESS DISMISSED.

Defendant was committed to the Veteran’s Hospital in Brockton. Defendant physically assaulted another patient by punching him twice in the face. Defendant then stabbed a nurse in the neck with a ballpoint pen. Defendant suffers from Schizoaffective Disorder, Bipolar Type and presents with prominent symptoms of psychosis, including significant auditory hallucinations and delusions. Defendant hears voices telling him to do things. However, law enforcement took the position that the Defendant was legally responsible for his actions, knew exactly what he was doing, and that his mental illnesses did not play any factor in his attack on the nurse and other patient. Specifically, law enforcement alleged that the Defendant’s attack was premeditated and he planned the attack about an hour and half earlier. Defendant stated that the voices in his head did not tell him to attack the nurse. Defendant stated that he stabbed the nurse because he wanted to experience the feeling of killing someone. According to law enforcement, the attending physician could not say for certain whether the Defendant was legally responsible for his actions due to his mental illness. Defendant was charged with Assault with Intent to Murder (G.L. c. 265, §15), Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon (G.L. c. 265, §15A), Assault & Battery (G.L. c. 265, §13A), and Disorderly Conduct (G.L. c. 272, §53).

Result: Defendant was found incompetent to stand trial. The Commonwealth petitioned to have the Defendant committed to the Bridgewater State Hospital because he required the strict security of the facility while treating his mental illness. Defendant had been involuntarily committed for several years and periodically found incompetent to stand trial at the time that the Defendant’s father hired Attorney Patrick J. Noonan. Defendant was transferred to the Worcester Recovery Center but still involuntarily committed. Attorney Noonan met with the Defendant, his father, and his treatment team. Defendant was doing well and progressing with his treatment. The treatment team wanted to progress the Defendant into his next stage of treatment, which was supervised community access where the Defendant would have limited exposure to the outside world. However, the treatment team could not advance the Defendant to this next level of treatment because the Defendant was “held without bail” and his bail status precluding him from leaving the hospital. The criminal case was greatly interfering with the Defendant’s treatment. Attorney Noonan successfully moved the Court to change the Defendant’s bail status so he could progress to his next level of treatment and have supervised community access. Defendant did very well with his next level of treatment and he had no incidents. Attorney Noonan filed a Motion to Dismiss the case pursuant to G.L. c. 123, §16(f) because the Defendant has been held in the capacity of incompetent to stand trial for five (5) years, which is one-half of the maximum sentence of the most serious crime he was charged with: Assault with Intent to Murder. Attorney Noonan also argued that §16(f) grants the Court the discretion to dismiss such a case “in the interests of justice.” Attorney Noonan presented evidence from the Defendant’s treatment team stating how well the Defendant was doing and that the Defendant was temporarily scheduled to be discharged from the Hospital subject to an outpatient treatment plan. The Judge dismissed the case. With the criminal case dismissed, the Defendant has no restrictions on his ability to receive quality medical care.

ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN CONVINCES JUDGE TO DISMISS FELONY DRUG CHARGE IN BOSTON AGAINST A DEFENDANT WHO WAS SERVING A JAIL SENTENCE FOR FELONY DRUG CONVICTIONS IN BROCKTON – SAVING HIS CLIENT FROM THE POSSIBILITY OF SERVING SERIOUS JAIL TIME.

Defendant was charged, in the Brockton District Court, with Possession with Intent to Distribute Class A-Heroin (G.L. c. 94C, §32) and Possession with Intent to Distribute Class D-Marijuana (G.L. c. 94C, §32C). While his Brockton District Court case was pending, Defendant was arrested in Boston and charged with Possession with Intent to Distribute Class D (marijuana). In the Brockton District Court case, Defendant was convicted and was sentenced to serve time in jail while his drug case in Boston was still pending. As the Defendant was now previously convicted of Possession with Intent to Distribute in Brockton, he was facing serious penalties in his Boston case.

Result: In the Boston case, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan argued a Motion a Dismiss the drug charge for lack of probable cause, which was denied by the Judge. In his Motion to Dismiss, Attorney Noonan argued that the evidence of an intent to distribute was insufficient because the officer did not make any findings with regards to the quantity of the drugs. After his Motion to Dismiss was denied, the Boston case was then scheduled for trial. On the trial date, this time before a different judge, Attorney Noonan moved to dismiss the drug charge based on the same argument he made before; that there was insufficient evidence of an intent to distribute drugs because there was no evidence with regards to the quantity of drugs in the Defendant’s possession. This time, the judge agreed and dismissed the drug charge. This was a big victory because the client was facing serious penalties due to the fact that he had been previously convicted for Possession with Intent to Distribute.

ON THE FIRST TRIAL DATE, PROSECUTOR DROPS CHARGE OF OUI-DRUGS AGAINST SCREENWRITER RATHER THAN TRY THE CASE AGAINST ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN.

On June 19, 2018, Massachusetts State Police pulled over the Defendant’s vehicle on Route 6 in Barnstable because one of his taillights was out. The State Trooper observed that the vehicle was suspiciously activating its brake lights, several times, even though no other vehicles were on the road. The Trooper approached the vehicle. Upon the driver’s side window being rolled down, a big cloud of smoke poured out of the vehicle and the Trooper detected a strong smell of marijuana. The Trooper asked the Defendant if he had smoked any marijuana and the Defendant admitted that he had “been smoking all day.” There were three passengers in the vehicle; all of whom admitted that they were smoking marijuana. Defendant stated that they were coming from dinner. Defendant further stated that he had smoked a joint before and after dinner. The Trooper observed that the Defendant spoke in a very slow and delayed speech. Defendant’s eyes were bloodshot and glassy. After several requests, Defendant could not locate his vehicle’s registration. Defendant did not have a valid driver’s license either. During the entire driver’s side conversation, the Trooper noted that the smell and smoke from the marijuana was continuously flowing out of the vehicle. The Trooper asked the Defendant to exit the vehicle to perform field sobriety tests. Defendant stumbled several times while walking to the front of his vehicle. The Trooper administered the Walk and Turn field sobriety test, which the Defendant failed in the officer’s opinion. Trooper administered the Romberg field sobriety test, which the Defendant failed in the officer’s opinion. The Trooper formed the opinion that the Defendant was Operating under the Influence of Drugs-Marijuana (G.L. c. 90, §24).

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan appeared ready for trial armed with evidence to prove that his client was not under the influence of marijuana. The District Attorney was ready for trial and the State Trooper was present and prepared to testify. Attorney Noonan elected to have a jury-waived trial before a judge rather than a jury. The court took a brief recess. After the brief recess, the trial was going to start. During the recess, the prosecutor approached Attorney Noonan and stated that the Commonwealth was dismissing the charge of Operating under the Influence of Drugs.

CRIMINAL COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF A RESTRAINING ORDER AGAINST RETIRED BUSINESSMAN DISMISSED AT CLERK-MAGISTRATE HEARING AFTER VICTIM FAILED TO COMPLY WITH ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN’S REQUEST TO PRODUCE HER ONLY CORROBORATING WITNESS.

Client is a retired businessman from Easton who was in the middle of a nasty divorce with his soon-to-be ex-wife. The wife obtained an Abuse Prevention Restraining Order against the Defendant, which prohibited the Defendant from contacting her. The wife went to the Canton Police Station alleging that the client violated the restraining order by having a mutual friend contact her by phone. The wife alleged that the client instructed this mutual friend to contact her and she could hear the Defendant in the background of the telephone call. As a result, the Canton Police filed an Application for Criminal Complaint for Violation of 209A (G.L. c. 209A, §7).

Result: At the first clerk-magistrate hearing, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan argued that his client had no idea who this alleged mutual friend was who supposedly contacted his wife. Attorney Noonan presented evidence that the wife was previously unsuccessful in obtaining a 209A Order against the Defendant. The wife was successful in her second attempt in obtaining a 209A Order. Attorney Noonan filed a Motion to Modify the conditions of the active 209A Order, which was allowed over the objection of the wife and her attorney. Upset about over the outcome of that hearing, the wife went directly to the police station to report this alleged violation. At the first clerk-magistrate hearing, Attorney Noonan requested that the wife produce the mutual friend as a witness to corroborate the wife’s allegation. Attorney Noonan argued that, if the wife could not produce the mutual friend as a witness now or in the future, the criminal charge would ultimately be dismissed – so it made sense to establish now, rather than later, if the wife could produce this witness. The Clerk-Magistrate ordered the wife to produce the mutual friend at the next Clerk’s Hearing. At the next Clerk’s hearing, the wife failed to produce this witness and the Clerk-Magistrate dismissed the case.

CHARGES OF DRUGGING PERSON FOR SEXUAL INTERCOURSE AND ASSAULT & BATTERY ARE SEALED FROM CLIENT’S RECORD.

Defendant, a 36 year-old Rhode Island resident and employee of a major health insurance company, was charged, when he was 27 years-old, with Drugging a Person for Sexual Intercourse (G.L. c. 272, §3) and Assault & Battery (G.L. c. 265, §13A).

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan successfully sealed the charges from the client’s criminal record. Client may now report that he was never arrested, charged, or convicted of these offenses.

ASSAULT & BATTERY CHARGE AGAINST ELECTRICIAN DISMISSED AT TRIAL OVER THE OBJECTION OF THE ALLEGED VICTIM AND THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE.

Client, an Electrician and Canton resident, was charged with Assault & Battery against his wife. Canton Police were dispatched to the parking lot of the client’s condominium in response to a 911 call made by his wife. Upon arrival, the wife, visibly upset at the scene, alleged that the client was angry with her and ripped her pocketbook out of her hands causing the contents of the pocketbook to be scattered about the parking lot. The client told police that they had a verbal argument but the police decided to arrest him and charge him with Assault & Battery.

Result: This case had a complicated history. The wife had taken out several restraining orders against the client where she made very serious allegations against him. Specifically, she claimed that the client had forced sex upon her, had threatened to kill her on multiple occasions, and even attempted to kill her. During the restraining order hearings, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan vigorously cross-examined the wife and locked her into many lies, false allegations, and contradictory statements, which he planned on using against her at the client’s criminal trial. For example, the wife claimed that the Defendant had murdered his first wife but Attorney Noonan had irrefutable evidence that his first wife died of cancer. The wife further alleged that the Defendant took out a life insurance policy on her and was motivated to kill her to collect millions of dollars but Attorney Noonan had a witness from the insurance company ready to testify that these allegations were untrue. The wife alleged that the client had taken to Florida to feed her to alligators but Attorney Noonan had pictures from their trip to Florida showing the wife posing with stuffed alligators while laughing and having a good time. On a prior occasion, the wife called the police to report that the client had weapons in his house that he planned to kill her with but Attorney called the investigating officer as a witness who was prepared to testify that he searched the client’s home and did not find any weapons. Attorney Noonan had evidence to prove that the wife told lie after lie after lie. On the day of trial, the wife claimed that she needed an interpreter in order to testify but there was no interpreter in court. After speaking to the wife, the prosecutor requested a continuance of the trial so they could arrange to have an interpreter at the next trial date. Attorney Noonan objected to a continuance of the trial, and moved for trial, arguing that the wife did not need an interpreter because she had previously testified, in the same court, in two different hearings, without an interpreter and she did not have any difficulty speaking or understanding English and she previously filed written Affidavits, in English, in her own writing without the assistance of anyone. The Judge found that the wife did not need an interpreter to testify. The wife was faced with an ultimatum: Either she testifies at trial right now or the case gets dismissed. The wife elected not to testify. Attorney Noonan moved to dismiss the case. The Judge dismissed the case over the objection of the prosecutor and the wife.

ALLEGATIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT FOR THREATS TO COMMIT MURDER BY EX-GIRLFRIEND DISMISSED, AS ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN PRESENTS EVIDENCE THAT THE EX-GIRLFRIEND SOUGHT THE CRIMINAL CHARGE IN ORDER TO GET CUSTODY OF THEIR SON.

Client and his ex-wife girlfriend were in a heated and contentious court battle over the custody of their 18 month-old son in the Family Court. Previously, the girlfriend reported to police that the client had kidnapped their child and brought the child to Florida with no intention of returning the child. As a result of the girlfriend allegations, a warrant issued for the client’s arrest for the crime of Parental Kidnapping (G.L. c. 265, §26A). Attorney Patrick J. Noonan was able to get the Parental Kidnapping charge dismissed prior to arraignment and the client was never charged with that crime. Subsequently, the girlfriend went into the Plymouth Police Department and reported that the client had sent her text messages where he threatened to kill her. As a result of this allegation, the police filed an Application for Criminal Complaint against the client for Threats to Commit a Crime, the crime being Murder (G.L. c. 275, §2).

Result: At the Clerk-Magistrate Hearing, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan presented evidence that the girlfriend was motivated to accuse the client of threatening to kill her as a strategy and as a way to win custody of the child in the Family Court. Attorney Noonan presented evidence that the girlfriend made a written proposal to the client where she stated that she would agree to drop the criminal charges against the client in exchange for the client giving her custody of the child. After the hearing, the Clerk-Magistrate did not issue the criminal complaint against the client.

RESTRAINING ORDER AGAINST PROFESSIONAL WRESTLER BY WIFE, ALLEGING ABUSE AND SEEKING IMMEDIATE CUSTODY OF CHILD, IS TERMINATED AFTER ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN PRESENTS EVIDENCE SHOWING THAT THE WIFE’S CLAIMS ARE NOT CREDIBLE AND INSUFFICIENT AS A MATTER OF LAW. CLIENT IS NOW ALLOWED TO SEE HIS SON.

Client, a professional wrestler, had a short-term marriage to his wife and they have a 10 month-old son together. The wife obtained an Abuse Prevention Order (G.L. c. 209A) from a Judge, which granted her immediate custody of the son. Client was ordered to move out of his own house, have no contact with his wife or child, and to stay away. Client immediately hired Attorney Patrick J. Noonan who represented the client at a hearing where he sought to terminate the Order. At the hearing, the wife claimed that the client suffered from bi-polar disorder, was mentally unstable, engaged in fits of rage, was suicidal, and had refused to take his bi-polar medication. The wife claimed that the client’s family knew all about his bi-polar disorder.

Result: At the hearing, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan called the client’s mother to testify. His mother was a nurse who worked in a psychiatric unit. The mother testified, credibly, that the client did not have bi-polar (or any other mental illness), was never suicidal, and was certainly not mentally unstable. The mother’s testimony completely refuted the wife’s wild allegations that the client was mentally unstable. The mother testified that she would often babysit the child because the client worked long hours, as the sole financial provider for his wife and child. The mother frequently observed the client interacting with his child and testified, credibly, that the client was a loving and caring father, contrary to the wife’s claims. The mother testified to an incident where the wife had punched the client in the face. The mother testified that the wife had a history of blowing things out of proportion. After the hearing, the judge vacated the restraining order. Now, the client can see his son.

AFTER A HEARING, ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN GETS FELONY ASSAULT CHARGE SEALED FROM ASPIRING TEACHER’S CRIMINAL RECORD

In 2013, when our client was 22 years-old, he was charged with Assault & Battery and Assault & Battery with a Dangerous Weapon (a felony) upon his then-girlfriend. There were photographs showing serious injuries to the girlfriend’s face and the Defendant had written a letter to his girlfriend apologizing for what he did. Prior to our representation, our client entered a plea to both charges, admitted to sufficient facts, and was placed on probation for two years with conditions that he receives anger management and substance abuse treatment. In 2015, the charges were dismissed upon his successful completion of probation. Because our client was charged with a felony, he was not eligible to have his record sealed until ten (10) years following the disposition of his case. That is, our client was not eligible to get the felony sealed until 2025. It should be noted that, in October of 2018, new legislation will go into effect regarding record sealing and expungement. Our client was a college graduate. He had hopes of getting a Graduate Degree in Education and fulfilling his dream of becoming a high school science teacher. However, because of the criminal charges on his record, including the felony charge, our client did not feel he could get into Graduate School or get hired as a teacher.

Result: Our client was very discouraged. He felt that he would never be able to become a teacher so he didn’t even try. Then, one day, he called our law office to see if anything could be done. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan reviewed his case and told him about our record sealing laws in Massachusetts and how he could petition the Court to have his record sealed immediately rather than waiting until 2025. Our client decided to give it a shot. At a hearing, our law office presented evidence to convince the Judge order to the sealing of our client’s criminal record.

The client is a 41 year-old, happily married, father of three children. The client applied for a License to Carry Firearms with the police department in his place of residence. The police department denied his application for LTC because of two prior criminal cases on his record, which disqualified him.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan presented the police department with evidence that the two prior criminal cases should not disqualify his client from obtaining an LTC. One of the prior criminal cases, a felony drug conviction, was later vacated by the court and should not be considered as grounds for disqualification. The other prior criminal case, a charge of Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon, resulted in a Not Guilty verdict, which should not be considered as grounds for disqualification. Attorney Noonan also presented evidence showing that his client was a suitable person to possess a firearm. After considering Attorney Noonan’s evidence, the police department changed its mind and issued the client a license to carry firearms.

IN A RARE CASE WHERE A DEFENDANT CONFESSES TO A CRIME ON SOCIAL MEDIA, ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN PROVES HIS CLIENT’S INNOCENCE AND WINS NOT GUILTY VERDICTS IN A DRIVE-BY SHOOTING.

On December 31, 2016, there was a New Year’s Eve party at a home on Orchard Ave. in Brockton. Police received several 911 calls reporting multiple gunshots fired at the home. One call reported that six gunshots were fired. One bullet traveled through a bedroom where a young child had been sleeping. Upon arrival the home, police interviewed several witnesses who lived in the home and were present for the party. Two of the witness immediately informed police that they had Snapchat videos posted by the person who committed the shooting. The Snapchat videos were posted from the account of Ritch Dorce, the Defendant in the case. One video physically showed Dorce present at the party. Another video showed Dorce sitting in the car, holding a firearm, and confessing the shooting. Dorce states: “I just got jumped, but, ayy, it’s OK. I just emptied all my shells. I ain’t got no more shells. But, ayy, I’m about to go back and get some more.” Dorce is then seen releasing the magazine to the firearm. Police interviewed approximately nine individuals who were present at the party. Some witnesses told police that Dorce got into a physical altercation with others at the party over marijuana. Some witnesses reported that Dorce was in the company of approximately 4-5 other males who were also involved in fights with others at the party. Some witnesses reported that Dorce, and the males with him, retrieved baseball bats and damaged a vehicle with bats. Some witnesses reported that Dorce was seen holding a taser. Some witnesses reported that Dorce threatened to come back and shoot the house up. Two witnesses stated that they were outside when they observed two vehicles drive by and fire shots at the house. One witness identified Dorce as sitting in one of the vehicles, which was involved in the shooting. Police obtained search warrants for Dorce’s Snapchat account, which confirmed that Dorce had in fact posted the incriminating videos on his Snapchat account. Police obtained search warrants for Dorce’s cell phone, GPS, and tower locations for his cell phone, which allowed police to locate Dorce and arrest him. Dorce agreed to videotape interview with police. In the interview, Dorce admitted that he posted the video but Dorce maintained that he was not the shooter. Dorce admitted that he got jumped at the party but he maintained that he was not the shooter. Dorce was charged with: 1) Carrying a Firearm without a License, 2) Unlawful Possession of Ammunition, 3) Assault with a Dangerous Weapon, 4) Malicious Destruction of Property, and 5) Malicious Damage to a Vehicle.

Result: At the trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan presented evidence that somebody else committed the shooting. In his interview, Dorce told police that he attended the party with three other males, one of whom was named Jeff. Dorce stated that he left the party and his cousin gave him a ride to his apartment in Brockton where he met his girlfriend and daughter. While he was in his Brockton home, Dorce received a phone call from Jeff who instructed Dorce to come outside and meet him in his car. While in the car, Jeff told Dorce that he (Jeff) “took care of it” because he didn’t want Dorce “to get his hands dirty.” Jeff then showed Dorce the handgun. At that point, Dorce foolishly decided to post a video on Snapchat of himself holding the handgun and taking credit for the shooting. Dorce stated that he posted the video to let people know not to mess with him. Attorney Noonan presented evidence with regards to Jeff’s true identity and the fact that police did not conduct any investigation into Jeff. Attorney Noonan had his private investigator testify that he was able to locate Jeff’s public Facebook page, which contained posts where Jeff appeared to feel guilty over the fact that Dorce was in jail for something he did not do and Jeff posted that he would take responsibility. The private investigator testified that he confronted Jeff with his posts but Jeff did not deny that he was involved in the shooting. Attorney Noonan argued that the police had evidence that would show Dorce’s whereabouts at the time of the shooting but the police did not bring this evidence to trial. Specifically, Dorce voluntarily handed over his cell phone to police and gave them the password to his phone. Dorce even asked the police to search his phone records, as the records would show that he was not involved in the shooting. Police obtained search warrants for Dorce’s cell phone, including his GPS and cell tower locations for the night of the shooting. Dorce’s cell phone records would show his whereabouts at the time of the shooting. If Dorce’s phone records showed that he was in the vicinity of the shooting at the time the shooting occurred, Attorney Noonan argued, the police would have brought that evidence to trial and showed it to the jury. Attorney Noonan argued that the police could have tested the fingerprints from the shell casings found at the scene in order to prove that Dorce handled the bullets that fired the gun. Attorney Noonan argued that Dorce’s Snapchat video was one of hundreds of videos where Dorce is playing a character as part of an online persona where he tried to look tough and sound tough. Dorce held himself out to be somebody he wasn’t. There was the real Dorce and his online persona. The Snapchat video was simply another example of Dorce trying to sound tough. After a three-day trial, the jury found that Mr. Dorce was not the shooter and they acquitted him of all charges except one charge. The jury found Dorce guilty of only holding the firearm in the Snapchat video but they found that Dorce was not the shooter and was not involved in the shooting. In a rare case where a Defendant confesses to committing a crime, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan proves his client’s innocence.

Media about the case:

A Snapchat split decision – Brockton ‘poser’ both guilty and acquitted.

Also:

Click HERE or on the image above to view larger.

ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN WINS NOT GUILTY VERDICT IN OUI-LIQUOR CASE, AS THE PROSECUTION FAILED TO PROVE “WHO” OPERATED THE VEHICLE.

Bridgewater Police received a call from a resident stating there was a disabled vehicle parked in the street and the driver appeared to be sitting in the vehicle with his head back. Upon arrival, police observed the Defendant’s vehicle parked on the shoulder of the road with two tires blown out. The officer approached the driver’s side of the vehicle where the Defendant had been seated. The officer detected a strong odor of marijuana emanating from the vehicle. The officer asked how the tires were blown out and the Defendant stated that he must have hit something back there and pointed down the road. Defendant admitted that he had smoked a roach while attempting to change his tires prior to Defendant calling for a tow truck. Defendant claimed that he had a medical marijuana card but stated that it had been “responded” when he meant to say “expired.” Defendant admitted to drinking two Budweiser beers about three hours ago. There was a female sitting in the front passenger side of the Defendant’s vehicle. She told police that Defendant had smoked marijuana and consumed alcohol earlier in the night but she felt he was fine to drive. There were two empty nip bottles on the ground outside the vehicle. The female passenger initially stated that the bottles belonged to her but later stated that the Defendant told her to throw out the nip bottles. The officer testified that the Defendant failed several field sobriety tests, such as the Nine Step Walk and Turn and the One Leg Stand. Defendant was placed under arrest for OUI-Liquor and Negligent Operation. At the police station, police found a plastic bag containing marijuana in the Defendant’s pant pocket. At the police station, Defendant consented to a breathalyzer test, which shows that he had a blood alcohol concentration of 0.14%, above the legal limit.

Result: In order to prove the Defendant guilty of OUI-Liquor and Negligent Operation, the prosecution must prove that the Defendant was the “operator” of the vehicle. At the trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan convinced the judge to find his client not guilty because the prosecution failed to prove that the Defendant, and not the female, was the operator of the vehicle, as there was evidence tending to show that the female could have driven the vehicle. Even though the Defendant had admitted to being the operator, that alone, was insufficient to convict the Defendant unless there was evidence to corroborate that the Defendant was the operator of the vehicle. Attorney Noonan argued that, besides the Defendant’s admission to operating the vehicle, there was no other evidence to corroborate that he was the driver.

PARENTAL KIDNAPPING CHARGE AGAINST FLORIDA MAN IS DISMISSED PRIOR TO ARRAIGNMENT AFTER ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN PRESENTS CASE LAW SHOWING HIS CLIENT DID NOT COMMIT A CRIME

Defendant had a young child with his girlfriend. Defendant, his girlfriend, and the child all lived together in Florida, where the Defendant is from. They recently moved to Plymouth where they lived together in an apartment. The girlfriend and the Defendant had an argument one afternoon. Defendant told the girlfriend that he was taking the child to Florida for a few days to see his family. Defendant told the girlfriend that he would return to Massachusetts with the child after seeing his family. The girlfriend went to the police station to report that the Defendant had kidnapped the child. The police contacted the Defendant, as he was traveling to Florida. Defendant told the police that he had a right to take his child and he was doing nothing illegal. Police continued to contact the Defendant but he did not answer his phone. As the Defendant was in Florida, the girlfriend obtained an Abuse Prevention Restraining Order against the Defendant in the Plymouth Probate and Family Court, which granted her immediate custody of the child. The Probate and Family Court issued an Order ordering the Defendant to immediately return the child to the girlfriend in Massachusetts. With the assistance of Plymouth Police, the girlfriend filed a Missing Person’s Report. The Plymouth Police Department obtained an Arrest Warrant for the Defendant’s arrest for the crime of Parental Kidnapping. Plymouth Police contacted the Tampa Police seeking their assistance in apprehending the Defendant and returning the child to Massachusetts.

Result: Defendant contacted Attorney Patrick J. Noonan from Florida and explained that he had a warrant for his arrest for the crime of Parental Kidnapping. Attorney Noonan made arrangements for the Defendant to come to Massachusetts to remove the Arrest Warrant. Attorney Noonan brought the Defendant into court and reached an agreement with the prosecution that they would remove the arrest warrant and they hold off on charging the Defendant for one week. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan provided the prosecution with case law showing that the Defendant could not be charged with the crime of Parental Kidnapping because there were no court orders regarding child custody at the time the Defendant took the child to Florida. See Commonwealth v. Beals, 405 Mass. 550 (1989)(where SJC held: parent who has taken his or her children from the other parent before there was any court proceeding cannot be convicted of parental kidnapping.) The prosecution agreed with Attorney Noonan and they dismissed the Parental Kidnapping charge prior to arraignment.

IN A MANSLAUGHTER INVESTIGATION FOR A DRUG OVERDOSE, ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN GETS SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE SUPPRESSED, INCLUDING: SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S CELL PHONE, SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S HOME, AND INCRIMINATING STATEMENTS MADE BY DEFENDANT. LAWYER’S WEEKLY PUBLICATION DID A FEATURE ON THE CASE FOR ITS SIGNIFICANCE.

Police responded to a private residence for a drug overdose. Upon arrival to the scene, police found a male lying on the floor of his living room dead of a drug overdose. Police searched the deceased’s pockets and found a rolled up $20 bill with brown residue on the tip of it. Police also found on the deceased’s pocket a folded $20 bill and Keno ticket containing brown powder. The brown powder tested positive for heroin. Police searched the deceased’s cell phone and found text messages with the Defendant showing that the two had met the night before the overdose. Police used the deceased’s cell phone, posing as the deceased, and contacted the Defendant by text message and asked to buy some drugs from the Defendant. Police instructed the Defendant to bring the drugs to a parking lot. Upon Defendant’s arrival to the parking lot, Defendant is immediately arrested as soon as he exits his vehicle. Police search the Defendant’s vehicle and find heroin. Defendant is brought to the Stoughton Police Station where he is interrogated by police. In the interrogation, Defendant tells police that he has heroin and pills in his bedroom. The Defendant signed a form giving police permission to search his home. The Defendant also signs another form giving police permission to search his cell phone. Subsequently, police searched the Defendant’s home where they found heroin and pills. Police intended to use the Defendant’s cell phone records to prove that the Defendant sold the heroin, which caused the deceased to die from a drug overdose. Police intended to use the evidence they obtained from the Defendant to charge him with Manslaughter for having caused the death of the deceased.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan filed a Motion to Suppress Evidence in which he sought to suppress the following evidence: statements made by Defendant to police during the interrogation, defendant’s consent for police to search his home, and defendant’s consent for police to search his cell phone. After four hearings, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan proved that the evidence was illegally obtained by police. Attorney Noonan proved that the statements made by the Defendant during the police interrogation should have been suppressed because he clearly invoked his right to remain silent and his right to an attorney but the police continued to question him anyway in violation of his constitutional rights. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan proved that the Defendant’s consent for the police to search his home and cell phone was invalid because the Defendant’s consent was not given freely or voluntarily. Specifically, Defendant had never been arrested before, he had no prior involvement with police, and he was unfamiliar with the criminal justice system. On top of that, Defendant had been tasered by police prior to the interrogation and Defendant remained handcuffed during the interrogation. Officers admitted that the interrogation was aggressive, at times, and involved yelling. The Defendant’s consent to search his home was not voluntary, as there was evidence that police used the Defendant’s mother as a way to coax him into consenting to a search of his home. Defendant lived with his mother and he was concerned for his mother’s well-being should the police show up at her house, unannounced, and start searching throughout the home. In essence, police told the Defendant that things would be easier for his mother if he simply consented to a search of his bedroom.

See Lawyer’s Weekly Article about the case, “Search results from residence, cell suppressed (.pdf)”

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

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

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

DEFENDANT’S CONFESSION TO POLICE OF STEALING $6,000 FROM HIS EMPLOYER ARE SUPPRESSED FROM EVIDENCE, AS ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN PROVES THAT POLICE DID NOT READ HIM HIS MIRANDA RIGHTS.

Client was an employee for a company in Brockton. A fraud investigator from the company confronted the Defendant with evidence showing that he stole more than $6,000 from the company. The fraud investigator told Defendant he was going to the police to report it and it would be a good idea for the Defendant to come along. At the Brockton police station, the fraud investigator gave the police officer company records showing the Defendant’s thefts from the company totaling more than $6,000. The police officer proceeded to interrogate and question the Defendant about the thefts. During the interrogation, Defendant admitted that he stole from the company. Based largely on his confession, the officer charged him with Larceny over $250 (G.L. c. 266, §30)

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan filed a Motion to Suppress his client’s confession to the police officer on the grounds that the police officer did not read him his Miranda Rights. After a hearing, the judge allowed Attorney Noonan’s Motion to Suppress and his client’s confession is now suppressed from evidence. At trial, the Commonwealth cannot introduce any evidence that the Defendant confessed to the police officer that he stole the money.

ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN WINS NOT GUILTY VERDICTS ON ALL CHARGES, INCLUDING OPERATING UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF DRUGS, POSSESSION OF A CLASS C SUBSTANCE, AND OPERATING TO ENDANGER.

Quincy Police were dispatched to a call from a concerned citizen reporting that a person (defendant) was passed out and slumped over the steering wheel of his car. Upon arrival to the scene, police spoke to the witness who pointed to the Defendant’s car as it was leaving the scene. Police pursued the vehicle. When police came upon the vehicle, they discovered there had been an accident. Police spoke to the other driver who reported that the Defendant struck her vehicle. Police spoke to the Defendant who was lethargic and nodding off. Defendant admitted to smoking marijuana. Defendant admitted to recently taking a prescription medication called Seroquel, which made him very sleepy and tired. Police searched Defendant’s vehicle and discovered a pill, which was later tested and found to be Clonazepam, a Class C Controlled Substance. In his vehicle, police also found syringes and other items consistent with intravenous drug use. With the Clonazepam in the vehicle, police charged Defendant with Possession of a Class C Substance (G.L. c. 94C, §34). Police charged him with Operating under the influence of Drugs (G.L. c. 90, §24) and Operating to Endanger (G.L. c. 90, §24(2)(a).

Result: At trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan convinced the judge to find his client not guilty on all charges. First, Attorney Noonan convinced the judge that the Commonwealth failed to prove that Seroquel was a “drug.” The Commonwealth went on to claim that Defendant was under the influence of marijuana or heroin, or both. Second, Attorney Noonan argued that the police officer could not give an opinion that the Defendant was under the influence of marijuana or heroin because the police officer was not qualified as an expert. Third, the Commonwealth sought to prove that the pill was Clonazepam through a Drug Certificate of Analysis where the crime lab tested the pill and identified it as Clonazepam. Attorney Noonan convinced the judge to throw out the Drug Certificate because the Commonwealth failed to lay a proper foundation. Attorney Noonan introduced evidence that the pill identified in the Drug Certificate may not have been the same pill found in the trash can because the police officer testified that the pill in the vehicle was “blue” where the drug certificate identified the pill as “green.” Lastly, Attorney argued that his client had no idea that there was a pill in the vehicle. This was a work vehicle where other workers had access to the vehicle and the pill could have belonged to any of the workers who previously used the vehicle. Attorney Noonan argued that the Defendant did not have any knowledge that a Clonazepam pill was in the work truck because it was buried at the bottom of a trash barrel with other trash and discarded items.

NO CHARGES BROUGHT AGAINST DOG WALKER FOR STEALING ALCOHOL FROM CLIENT’S HOME.

Client was employed as a dog walker for a dog walking company in Sharon. The company received a call from one client who reported that he had video of the dog walker stealing alcohol from the bar in his home. When confronted by the company, she admitted to stealing the alcohol. The company fired her. The company contacted her stating the customer wanted restitution for the stolen alcohol or they would press charges.

Result: Client contacted Attorney Patrick J. Noonan who immediately resolved the dispute with the dog walking company and the customer. No criminal charges were brought against our client.

LARCENY CHARGE AGAINST HOTEL EMPLOYEE FOR STEALING MONEY DISMISSED AT CLERK’S HEARING, AS ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN REACHES A RESOLUTION WITH THE HOTEL.

Defendant, Brockton resident, is a 25 year-old Haitian immigrant with no criminal record and father of a newborn baby. He was working the front desk at a hotel in Revere when a customer came in to rent a room. The customer stated he didn’t have enough money to pay the fee for an overnight guest. The customer asked the Defendant to give him a break and only charge him $100. Defendant allegedly accepted the customer’s proposal, pocketed the $100, didn’t register the customer in the computer system, and allowed him to stay in a room overnight. The manager viewed surveillance video showing the Defendant pocketing the cash and not registering the guest. When confronted by the manager, Defendant admitted to taking the cash. The manager filed an application for criminal complaint against defendant for Larceny (G.L. c. 266, §30).

Result: At the clerk magistrate hearing, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan had the opportunity to mediate the dispute with the hotel manager and owner. They reached an agreement where the Defendant agreed to pay the hotel restitution for the money they lost. If the Defendant stays out of trouble, the charge will be dismissed.

JURY FINDS DEFENDANT NOT GUILTY OF OUI-LIQUOR (0.08% OR ABOVE) AFTER ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN PRESENTS EXPERT EVIDENCE SHOWING DEFENDANT’S BLOOD ALCOHOL LEVEL WAS BELOW 0.08% AT THE TIME SHE OPERATED HER VEHICLE.

Norwell Police were dispatched to the scene of a single car crash. Upon arrival, police found the Defendant’s car, flipped over, more than 100 feet off the ground in a drainage ditch. Defendant admitted to being the operator. At trial, the officer testified that he detected a strong odor of alcohol coming from the Defendant and her eyes appeared to be red and bloodshot. The officer testified that it was his opinion that the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol. The officer contacted an ambulance, as the Defendant appeared injured. The DA called the paramedic who testified that it was his opinion that the Defendant was intoxicated. The DA introduced hospital records showing that Defendant’s blood was tested for the presence of alcohol. The DA called an expert witness who testified that Defendant’s blood alcohol level was between 0.117% and 0.124%.

Result: At trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan called an expert witness, Dr. Samson, who is a toxicologist, specializing in alcohol. Dr. Samson testified that Defendant’s blood alcohol concentration was below 0.08% based on conversion factors she applied, which were generally accepted in the scientific community. In addition, Dr. Samson testified that the hospital’s blood test was not scientifically reliable and produced a higher alcohol level than what it actually was. The jury returned a verdict of not guilty on the charge of Operating under the Influence of Liquor with a blood alcohol level of 0.08% or above, as the jury was not convinced that the Commonwealth proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Defendant’s blood alcohol level was 0.08% or above.

GUN CHARGE FOR LEAVING A LOADED LARGE CAPACITY FIREARM WITH A MINOR, WHICH CARRIES A MANDATORY JAIL SENTENCE, DISMISSED AGAINST SINGLE MOTHER FROM CAPE COD.

Defendant had a valid License to Carry Firearms. She was a resident of Yarmouth. She owned a .40 caliber Ruger handgun, which she kept in her home. Defendant was previously arrested for a domestic Assault & Battery. Because she was arrested for a crime, her License to Carry was suspended. Yarmouth Police went to her house to serve her with a suspension notice and to seize her firearm. Upon entry into the home, Defendant stated that she did not know where the firearm was located. Police searched the home and found the firearm, in a case, lying on the floor in the corner of the living room. The case was not locked and the firearm was not secured properly. Defendant had three young children in the home. Client was charged with the very serious offense of Improperly Storing a Loaded Large Capacity Firearm Near a Minor, a charge that carries a mandatory jail sentence. See G.L. c. 140, §121 and G.L. c. 140, §131L(b)-(e).

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan proved to the DA that the firearm was not a large capacity firearm because it was not capable of accepting more than 10 rounds of ammunition. In addition, Attorney Noonan persuaded the DA to reduce the charge to the misdemeanor offense of Improper Storage. The DA wanted the Defendant to attend a parenting course as a condition of her probation. Attorney Noonan persuaded the judge to remove that condition because the Defendant was a single mother and sole provider for her three children and the course would pose an undue hardship on her. In the end, Defendant admitted to sufficient facts on the lesser misdemeanor charge and was placed on administrative probation for one year with no conditions. If the Defendant stays out of trouble, the charge will be dismissed after one year.

OUI CONVICTION SEALED FROM INTERIOR DESIGNER’S RECORD

Client, an owner of an interior designer company, was convicted of Operating under the Influence of Liquor in Boston. She had no other criminal record. She contacted Attorney Patrick J. Noonan with the hopes of getting her one conviction sealed from her record, as this was something that always bothered her.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan was able to get the client’s conviction for Operating under the Influence of Liquor sealed from her record.

AT TRIAL, ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN GETS 5 ASSAULT CHARGES, INCLUDING 3 FELONY CHARGES FOR ASSAULT WITH A DANGEROUS WEAPON, DISMISSED AGAINST HAITIAN IMMIGRANT FACING POTENTIAL DEPORTATION.

Brockton Police were dispatched to a gas station for a reported fight in progress. Upon arrival, police observed the Defendant being held on the ground by two males. An investigation showed that the Defendant had a dispute with gas station employees over payment of gas. The employees were claiming that the Defendant was trying to steal gas without paying. The employees claimed that the Defendant retrieved a tire jack from his vehicle and began swinging it wildly trying to injure the employees. Defendant was charged with 3 counts of Assault with a Dangerous Weapon (G.L. c. 165, §15B) for attempting to strike three employees with the tire jack. Defendant was charged with Assault & Battery for allegedly pushing a female employee and another count of Assault & Battery (G.L. c. 265, §13A) for hitting a male employee.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan brought the case to trial. With a court order, Attorney Noonan obtained a video that one employee took on her cell phone of an argument taking place inside the gas station office. Attorney Noonan learned that another employee took a video on his cell phone of the entire incident that occurred outside. Attorney Noonan sought a court order for the employee to produce this video, which he never did. Attorney Noonan was prepared to argue that the employee took a video of the entire incident but deliberately choose not to produce it under court order. Attorney Noonan subpoenaed this person but he failed to appear at trial. Attorney Noonan notified the Commonwealth that he would be arguing self-defense at trial. Attorney Noonan claimed that the Defendant acted in self-defense when he grabbed the tire jack because the two male employees attacked him. Defendant did not hit anyone with the tire jack; he only swung it to get his attackers to back away. Attorney Noonan sought to introduce evidence that one of the male employees, who attacked the Defendant, had prior convictions for violent offenses, which supported his case that the male employee was the aggressor. Defendant was prepared to take the stand in his own defense and testify that the male employees were aggressive, had attacked him, and preventing him from leaving the gas station. One employee even made a racial slur against the Defendant who was black. Attorney Noonan obtained evidence that his client did not attempt to steal any gas. Rather, his client had sufficient funds on his debit card, which for some reason did not process on the gas station’s machine. After two trial dates, the alleged victims (gas station employees) failed to appear and the case was dismissed. Defendant was in the process of becoming a U.S. citizen and, if convicted for these serious criminal offenses, he was facing deportation.

ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN WINS NOT GUILTY VERDICT IN ASSAULT & BATTERY CASE AFTER PROVING HIS CLIENT ACTED IN SELF-DEFENSE.

Boston Police responded to the parking lot at the Logan Airport for a report of an Assault and Battery (G.L. c. 265, §13A) stemming from a dispute between two limo drivers. At the scene, police spoke to the alleged victim, a female limo driver. She reported that the Defendant confronted her in the parking lot because her vehicle was parked too close to his vehicle. She claimed that the Defendant demanded that she move her vehicle. When she refused, the Defendant became irate; he forcefully opened her car door, and continued yelling at her. She claimed that the Defendant cornered her and backed her up against her vehicle so she couldn’t escape. She claimed that the Defendant violently pushed her, causing her to fall down and strike her head against the pavement. On scene, police observed a fresh abrasion to her head. At trial, Commonwealth introduced photos showing the physical injuries to her head.

Result: At trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan presented compelling evidence convincing the judge that his client acted in self-defense. Attorney Noonan introduced evidence that the victim was the aggressor. Attorney Noonan called an independent witness who testified that he saw the victim yelling in the Defendant’s face and she was pointing her finger in his face several times. The Defendant testified that the victim’s finger made physical contact with his nose. The Defendant asked the victim several times to stop pointing her finger in his face. When she continued yelling and pointing her finger in his face, Defendant acted reasonably in pushing her back. He made it clear to the court that his only intent was to get her to back up out of his face. He had no intention of hurting her. Attorney Noonan thoroughly discredited the victim by showing that she was motivated by money. Within a week of the incident, she hired an Attorney to sue the Defendant to get money from him. By the time of trial, she retained another civil attorney to sue the Defendant. She embellished her injuries so she could sue him for even more money. She even went so far as to claim that she suffered from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. By the time Attorney Noonan was done with her, her credibility was destroyed. The Judge found that the Commonwealth failed to prove that the Defendant did not act in self-defense.

CONVICTIONS FOR ASSAULT & BATTERY ON POLICE OFFICER AND DISORDERLY CONDUCT ARE SEALED FROM CLIENT’S RECORD.

Client had convictions out of the Boston Municipal Court where he pled guilty to Assault & Battery on a Police Officer (G.L. c. 265, §13D) and Disorderly Conduct (G.L. c. 272, §53).

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan successfully petitioned to have his client’s criminal convictions sealed from his record. Now, when the client is asked on job applications and other documents if he has ever been convicted of a crime, he may answer “no.”

AFTER JUDGE ORDERS DEFENDANT TO PAY $19,552.57 IN RESTITUTION, ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN PRESENTS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AND JUDGE RECONSIDERS HER RULING AND REDUCES THE RESTITUTION TO $5,083.48, SAVING CLIENT $14,469.09.

Defendant, a Bridgewater man, was convicted of multiple counts of Malicious Destruction of Property (G.L. c. 266, §127) for causing malicious damage to an expensive piece of machinery owned by a corporation. At a restitution hearing, the judge ordered the Defendant to pay the corporation $19,552.57 in restitution for the damage he caused to the machinery.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan filed a Motion to Reconsider the Judge’s Ruling and presented additional evidence showing that the Judge’s findings were incorrect and the true value of the property damage was $5,083.48. After reviewing the evidence presented by Attorney Noonan, the Judge agreed and issued a new order based on the restitution amount proposed by Attorney Noonan, saving his client from paying $14,469.09 in restitution he was not responsible for.

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

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

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

MARIJUANA CHARGES ARE PERMANENTLY SEALED FROM COMPUTER PROGRAMMER’S CRIMINAL RECORD

Client is a 38 year-old computer programmer and information technology specialist. Client had a great job opportunity to work for a major financial company. However, client was worried that he would not get the job because of some old criminal charges on his record. When the client was 18 years old, he pled out to a charge of Possession of Marijuana. When the client was 19 years old, he pled out to another charge of Possession of Marijuana. Other than these two charges, from when the client was a teenager, client had no other criminal record.

Result: Worried about being denied a new employment opportunity due to his criminal record, client contacted Attorney Patrick J. Noonan who was able to permanently seal all charges from his criminal record.

CLIENT SEEKING U.S. CITIZENSHIP WAS CONVICTED IN 1989 OF A DEPORTABLE OFFENSE BUT ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN GETS THE CONVICTION VACATED. CLIENT CAN NOW REPORT TO IMMIGRATION THAT HE HAS NO CONVICTIONS ON HIS RECORD.

Client, is a 47 year-old Brockton resident, a happily married man, and father of 5 children. He is college educated and has a successful business as a Certified Real Estate Appraiser. He was born in Cape Verde and came to the U.S. when he was 10 years old. His wife and children are U.S. citizens but he is not a U.S. citizen. He has been a permanent residence and green card holder. It has been his lifelong dream to become a U.S. citizen. Client contacted Attorney Patrick J. Noonan because he was concerned about a prior felony conviction affecting his application for U.S. citizenship. In 1989, client was convicted of Burning Property with Intent to Defraud Insurance Company. It was alleged that the client burned his own vehicle in an attempt to recover money from his insurance company. According to federal law (8 U.S.C.A. §1227(2)(A)), Burning Property with Intent to Defraud an Insurance Company is considered a crime of moral turpitude and is a deportable offense. “Any alien who is convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude is deportable.

Result: Client was concerned that his prior conviction for a deportable offense would affect his ability to become a U.S. citizen. Client had contacted other Attorneys who did not provide him with any confidence that anything could be done. Client contacted Attorney Patrick J. Noonan in desperation hoping that something could be done. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan told the client that he could try to get his felony conviction “vacated” and “dismissed” so that he could go into his immigration meeting with a record of no convictions. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan obtained the court records and discovered that the court did not give him an alien warning when he pled guilty to the charge. Pursuant to G.L. c. 278, §29D, judge’s must warn a Defendant who is pleading guilty, or taking another disposition, of the immigration consequences of that plea. Failure to provide such a warning may provide grounds for a motion to vacate the conviction. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan dug deeper and tried to find as much evidence surrounding the crime as possible. It was discovered that the client made all his car insurance payments and the insurance company did not pay anything out to the client. Therefore, the client could not have had the intent to defraud the insurance company because the insurance company did not suffer any financial loss. The facts were more consistent with the crime of Malicious Burning of Personal Property, which does not involve fraud. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan filed a Motion to Vacate his client’s conviction, which was allowed by the Judge and the case was dismissed. Now, the client has no conviction on his record.

DA’S OFFICE ARGUES THAT DEFENDANT IS TOO DANGEROUS TO RELEASE AND SEEKS TO HOLD HIM IN JAIL AS HE AWAITS TRIAL BUT ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN WINS HIS CLIENT’S RELEASE

Client, a 27 year-old lifelong resident of New Bedford, was arrested and charged with firearms offenses and evading police. At his arraignment, the DA’s Office moved the court to hold the Defendant in the House of Correction for 120 days or until his trial because the Commonwealth felt he was too dangerous to release. Fairhaven Police were called to the VWF for reports of an altercation involving members of a gang who were possibly armed with guns. When police arrived, Defendant fled the scene in his vehicle. Additional police units were dispatched to apprehend the fleeing Defendant. Eventually, police stopped the vehicle and ordered all the occupants out at gun point. Defendant admitted that he had a firearm in the glove compartment. Defendant was charged with Carrying a Firearm without a License (which carries a minimum mandatory jail sentence of 18 months), Improper Storage of a Firearm, and Failure to Stop for Police.

Result: As the client was sitting in jail, client’s mother contacted Attorney Patrick J. Noonan to get her son out of jail. At a hearing to determine whether the Defendant was too dangerous to release, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan introduced evidence and convinced the judge that the Defendant did not pose a danger to the public. Attorney Noonan introduced evidence that the Defendant is a lifelong resident of New Bedford, is presently employed in New Bedford, has strong roots in the community, has family in New Bedford, and did not pose of flight risk. In addition, Attorney Noonan challenged the evidence presented by the Commonwealth that his client was involved in a physical altercation at the VWF, that his client was armed during the altercation, and that his client was a member of a gang. Attorney Noonan pointed out that altercation at the VFW was purely verbal and that no witnesses reported seeing any sort of fight. Also, nobody identified the Defendant as being involved in the altercation. Lastly, there was only one witness who reported that the parties at the VWF were armed and gang members and this lone witness was never identified. The judge released the Defendant on a GPS device and did not impose any bail.

CLIENT, WITH A PENDING DRUG CASE, GETS ARRESTED FOR A NEW OFFENSE AND THE DA SEEKS TO LOCK HIM UP FOR 120 DAYS BUT ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN WINS CLIENT’S RELEASE

Client had a pending criminal case in the Brockton District Court where he was charged with two felony counts of Possession with Intent to Distribute Heroin and Marijuana. In that case, police conducted an investigation with a Confidential Informant who purchased drugs from the Defendant on two occasions. Police obtained a search warrant for the Defendant’s residence where they recovered large quantities of heroin and marijuana, along with other items indicative of a drug selling operation. While this drug case was pending, Defendant got arrested in Boston for Operating under the Influence of Liquor. When police searched his vehicle, they found 3 jars containing marijuana resulting in a new charge for Possession with Intent to Distribute Marijuana.

Result: The District Attorney’s Office moved to revoke the Defendant’s bail and have him locked up for 120 days (or until his Brockton case was disposed of) because the Defendant was arrested on new charges of OUI-Liquor and Possession with Intent to Distribute. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan convinced the Judge to release the Defendant on conditions rather than locking him up. The judge adopted Attorney Noonan’s proposal of placing Defendant on a GPS device and having him submit to drug testing.

ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN WINS NEW TRIAL FOR CLIENT CONVICTED OF DRUNK DRIVING BECAUSE HER BREATHALYZER TEST PRODUCED SCIENTIFICALLY UNRELIABLE RESULTS

Defendant, a single mother, was arrested by Massachusetts State Police for Negligent Operation and Operating under the Influence of Alcohol. At the police station, Defendant agreed to have a Breathalyzer Test to determine her blood alcohol content. The breath test machine gave a blood alcohol content result of 0.11%, which is over the legal limit. Based on the breath test result of 0.11%, Defendant pled out to the OUI charge.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan was hired to vacate the Defendant’s conviction and win her a new trial. Recently, in the case of Commonwealth v. Ananias, a District Court Judge ruled that a Breathalyzer Machine did not produce scientifically reliable Blood-Alcohol-Content results during the time period of June 2012 to September 2014. Relying on the Court’s recent decision, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan argued that his client’s conviction should be vacated and she should be awarded a new trial because the Breathalyzer Machine used in her case did not produce scientifically reliable results. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan was successful in getting his client’s conviction vacated and a jury trial is now scheduled.

ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN WINS NOT GUILTY VERDICTS IN CHILD ENDANGERMENT CASE

At trial, the Commonwealth introduced the following evidence: An identified civilian called West Bridgewater Police to report an erratic operator, later identified as the Defendant. The witness was following directly behind Defendant’s vehicle and saw the Defendant’s vehicle swerve entirely off the road almost striking a fence then quickly swerve back crossing into the oncoming lane. The witness stated that the Defendant stopped at a traffic light, stuck her head out the window, and proceeded to vomit twice. The witness went to the police station and filled out a written statement. West Bridgewater Police were dispatched to locate the Defendant’s vehicle. The police officer observe the Defendant traveling on a residential street and saw the vehicle cross over the center line and travel a quarter-mile with its wheels in the oncoming lane. The officer stopped the vehicle and observed vomit all over the side door and on the Defendant’s clothing. Immediately, the officer detected a strong odor of alcohol, noticed that her eyes were glassy and bloodshot, and observed that her speech was very slow and deliberate. Defendant admitted to drinking at a party. The police officer administered 5 field sobriety tests. In the officer’s opinion, Defendant failed all 5 field sobriety tests. The officer testified as to Defendant’s poor performance on all field sobriety tests and gave his opinion that the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol. Defendant had her three young children in the car. Due to the fact that the Defendant was operating under the influence of alcohol with her three children in the car, she was charged with the aggravated felony offense of Child Endangerment, which carries an enhanced penalty.

Result: At trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan attacked the credibility of the arresting officer by showing that the officer rushed to judgment and did not conduct a fair investigation. Attorney Noonan argued that as soon as the officer observed the vomit he made up his mind to arrest the Defendant for OUI-Liquor. Attorney Noonan showed that: Before the officer conducted any investigation, he told the Defendant to call someone to come and pick up her kids because he had already made up his mind to arrest her for drunk driving. Attorney Noonan called the Defendant’s friend to testify as a witness. The friend testified that she received a phone call from the Defendant who stated that she had been pulled over and needed her to come and pick up the kids. The friend testified that the officer grabbed the phone and told her to get down here immediately. Attorney Noonan argued the phone call was made while the Defendant was still sitting in the driver’s seat before she was asked to exit the car and submit to field sobriety tests. Shortly after receiving the phone call, the friend arrived to the scene and the Defendant was already under arrest. Attorney Noonan introduced the footwear the Defendant was wearing, which were boots with 2 inch heels. Attorney Noonan argued that it was difficult for the Defendant to perform the field sobriety tests demanded of her in these heels. Specifically, Defendant was asked to balance on one foot for 30 seconds while wearing these heels. In addition, the officer had Defendant walk 9 steps, back and forth, on an invisible line and maintain her balance in these heels. With regards to the vomit, Attorney called two witnesses to testify. These witnesses testified that they attended a funeral reception with the Defendant prior to her arrest. These witnesses testified that they ate the same food as the Defendant, chicken broccoli Alfredo. These witnesses testified that the chicken broccoli Alfredo was not cooked properly, smelled weird, and had a funky taste. They testified that they tasted the food and stopped eating it because it was gross. They testified to having conversations with the Defendant and others at the reception about the funky tasting food. They testified that the Defendant tasted the food and remarked that it tasted funky. Attorney Noonan argued that the Defendant vomited because of the bad food. The most compelling evidence came from the testimony of the owner and operator of a day care facility. Prior to getting pulled over, Defendant had picked up her kids at a day care facility and was on her way home when she was arrested. This witness testified that the Defendant dropped her three children off in the early morning while she attended the funeral. This witness testified that the Defendant came to pick up her three kids. This witness testified that they had a 10-minute conversation. This witness testified that she did not observe any signs to suggest that the Defendant may have been impaired by alcohol. This witness gave her opinion that the Defendant was not impaired by alcohol in any way. The witness testified that, as a licensed day care provider and a mandated reporter, she would have stopped the Defendant from driving away with her kids if she had any suspicion that Defendant was impaired by alcohol. After a two day trial, Defendant was found Not Guilty on all counts.

GUN CHARGE AGAINST FREETOWN TRUCK DRIVER, WHICH CARRIED A MANDATORY JAIL SENTENCE OF 18 MONTHS, WAS DISMISSED AFTER ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN PROVES THERE WAS NO PROBABLE CAUSE TO SUPPORT THE GUN CHARGE

Freetown Police were called to a residence after receiving 911 calls reporting that the Defendant retrieved a firearm and threatened to shoot his brother and then kill himself. Others in the house reported that the Defendant was mentally ill and a drug addict. Everyone had evacuated the home when police arrived. Defendant was arrested and brought to the hospital for a mental health evaluation. Defendant admitted that he did not have a license to possess the firearm and further stated that the bought the gun off the street.

Result: Defendant was charged with Carrying a Firearm without a License, which carries a mandatory jail sentence of 18 months. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan filed a Motion to Dismiss for lack of probable cause. Specifically, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan argued that it was not illegal for the Defendant to unlawfully possess a firearm, so long as the firearm was under his “exclusive control” and possessed by him “in or on his residence.”

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

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

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

CLIENT WAS FOUND GUILTY OF A FELONY AFTER A TRIAL IN 1980 BUT ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN GETS THE CONVICTION VACATED AND DISMISSED.

The Client is a 63-year-old former carpenter from Dennis who remains disabled from a bad work-related accident. In 1980, when the Client was 26 years-old, he was charged with felony larceny for allegedly stealing trees and shrubs from a Nursery in Dennis. The Client went to trial and was found guilty of the felony larceny. The client, an avid hunter, has been a gun owner since he was 17 years-old. He has had a Firearms Identification Card (FID Card) since age 17 and has renewed his FID Card for the past 46 years with no issues. The Client was concerned that his FID Card would be denied for renewal because of the old felony conviction.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan filed a Motion to Vacate his client’s Conviction arguing that: there was insufficient evidence that the larceny was a felony because the value of the stolen property was not clearly proven, the client had a viable Motion to Dismiss because the stolen property was never recovered despite police executing a search of the client’s home, and trial judge may have committed error in permitting the client to be represented at trial by his co-defendant who was acting pro se. Prior to any hearing on the Motion to Vacate Conviction, Attorney Noonan had a conversation with the District Attorney’s Office who agreed to vacate the client’s conviction and enter a dismissal. Attorney Noonan then filed a new Motion to Vacate Conviction that was agreed to by the parties. The Judge allowed the Motion to Vacate and entered a dismissal, as requested by both parties.

DEFENDANT FOUND NOT GUILTY OF 2 OUT OF 4 FELONIES FOR CAUSING MALICIOUS DAMAGE TO PROPERTY ON 4 SEPARATE OCCASIONS, WHICH, ACCORDING TO THE VICTIMS, EXCEEDED $101,000 IN DAMAGES.

Defendant, a 50-year-old resident of West Bridgewater, was charged with 4 counts of Malicious Destruction of Property over $250. Defendant worked for a company for 30 years and he was fired. After his termination, Defendant, on four separate occasions, intentionally inflicted damage to the company’s out-door industrial air chiller. The company claimed that the damage caused by the Defendant exceeded $101,000 dollars. After each act of vandalism, the company reported it to West Bridgewater Police. The company suspected that it was the Defendant who caused the damage. The company installed cameras to catch the Defendant in the act. The Defendant was caught on video causing damage to the air chiller and was arrested the following day. Prior to trial, the District Attorney’s Office offered the Defendant the following deal: Plead Guilty to all 4 felony charges of Malicious Destruction of Property over $250, be placed on probation for two years, and to pay restitution to be later determined at a hearing. Despite the evidence showing the Defendant was caught on videotape causing damage to the air chiller, and other strong evidence showing his guilt, Defendant opted to go to trial.

Result: At the trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan challenged the Commonwealth’s evidence that each act of vandalism caused at least $250 in damage even though the alleged victim’s claimed that the damage exceeded $100,000. With regards to 2 of the acts of vandalism, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan was able to convince the jury that the Commonwealth failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the damage exceeded $250. Instead of taking the Commonwealth’s deal to plead guilty to all 4 felony counts, Defendant was acquitted and found Not Guilty of 2 of the felony counts. Attorney Noonan was weary to have his client plead guilty to all 4 counts because the company could use his admissions against him when they seek $101,000 in restitution from the Defendant. The Defendant was given a suspended sentence with probation for two years, a sentence not all that much different from what the Commonwealth was asking for prior to trial.

ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN WINS A NOT GUILTY ON A SECOND-OFFENSE DRUNK DRIVING CASE.

The client is a 33-year-old financial consultant from Easton, MA. The police officer testified that he was stopped at a gas station when his attention was drawn to the sound of a car horn beeping for about 5 seconds. The officer followed the vehicles as they approached an intersection. The police officer observed the Defendant’s vehicle abruptly cut off the other driver causing the other vehicle to slam on its brakes and swerve to avoid a collision. The officer pulled over the Defendant’s car. When he approached the Defendant’s window, the officer observed that the Defendant’s eyes were glassy and bloodshot and he could smell an odor of alcohol on the Defendant’s breath. The officer testified that the Defendant initially stated that he did not consume any alcohol but later admitted to drinking at a strip club. The officer testified that the Defendant failed each and every field sobriety test. The officer testified that the Defendant failed the Alphabet Test twice, the Defendant failed the Nine Step Walk and Turn Test, and the Defendant failed the One-Leg Stand after attempting it twice.

Result: At the trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan effectively cross-examined the police officer and pointed out the inconsistencies in his testimony. Attorney Noonan pointed out everything the Defendant did well on the field sobriety tests, which the officer left out in his direct examination. Attorney Noonan introduced photos of the Defendant’s shoes to show how difficult it would be for someone to perform these field sobriety tests with this type of footwear, which had no ankle support. Attorney Noonan cross-examined the other driver and pointed out that the other driver had been speeding and he lost his patience when following the Defendant because the Defendant was not driving fast enough. Attorney Noonan called as a witness the police officer who booked the Defendant at the police station. Attorney Noonan established that the booking officer had booked the Defendant, in a small booking room, for about an hour. In a critical line of questioning, Attorney Noonan got the booking officer to testify that he could not formulate an opinion about the Defendant’s sobriety even though he had booked him for about an hour. After Attorney Noonan’s closing argument, the judge immediately found the Defendant Not Guilty. This was the Defendant’s second offense for drunk driving and he was facing possible jail time, a three year loss of license, and mandatory inpatient treatment.

JUDGE DISMISSES CASE WITH PREJUDICE AFTER ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN PROVES THAT THE POLICE OFFICER LIED TO THE COURT.

The Defendant, a resident of Hull, was charged with Operating under the Influence of Liquor. A civilian witness reported to Hull Police that the Defendant’s vehicle crossed into his lane, struck the side of his vehicle, and continued driving without pulling over. The witness approached the Defendant at a stop sign and asked him to pull over but the Defendant continued driving for over a mile before pulling into a plaza to pick up a pizza he had ordered. The witness called the police to report the hit and run. When the police arrived to the parking lot, the officer observed that the Defendant was unsteady on his feet and appeared to be intoxicated. The officer asked the Defendant to perform a series of field sobriety tests. From the start, the Defendant, in the officer’s words, was defiant, uncooperative, and argumentative. The Defendant insulted the officer. The officer found that the Defendant failed each and every field sobriety test that he performed and placed him under arrest for OUI-Liquor and Negligent Operation. Back at the police station, when the Defendant was being booked, the arresting officer stated that the Defendant continued to be defiant, uncooperative, and argumentative. The officer stated that the Defendant claimed that he was not the operator of the vehicle when he previously admitted that he was the operator. At the trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan called the Booking Officer to testify as a witness. Attorney Noonan called the Booking Officer to impeach the testimony of the arresting officer. During booking, the Booking Officer observed that the Defendant’s speech was “fair,” which contradicted the arresting officer’s observation that the Defendant’s speech was thick-tongued and slurred. More importantly, the Booking Officer observed that the Defendant’s “attitude was indifferent” and there were “no unusual actions” by the Defendant, which contradicted the arresting officer’s repeated assertions that the Defendant was defiant, argumentative, uncooperative, and insulting. As the trial started, the District Attorney received word that the Booking Officer could not appear to the trial because he was “sick.” Attorney Noonan asked for a continuance of the trial because the Booking Officer was an important witness for the defense. When the Defendant left the courthouse and was driving home, he saw the Booking Officer performing a detail and directing traffic. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan filed a Motion to Dismiss with prejudice on the grounds that the Booking Officer lied to the court when he represented that he was out sick when, in actuality, he was not sick but performing a paid detail. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan obtained documentation showing that the Booking Officer performed a paid detail on the day of trial from 7:00 AM to 8:30 PM for 13.5 hours.

Result: After Attorney Patrick J. Noonan presented evidence to show that the booking officer lied to the court, the Judge dismissed the OUI-Liquor charge, with prejudice, and found that the booking officer’s conduct was egregious. The case was dismissed with prejudice meaning that the Commonwealth cannot charge the Defendant with the same offense in the future. This is a rare case where a Judge dismissed a criminal charge with prejudice as a sanction for egregious police misconduct.

ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN PROVES THAT THE STATE POLICE UNLAWFULLY DETAINED HIS CLIENT AT A DRUNK-DRIVING ROADBLOCK, WHICH RESULTED IN THE DISMISSAL OF THE CASE EVEN THOUGH HIS CLIENT HAD A BLOOD ALCOHOL CONTENT OF 0.81%.

On May 28, 2016, the State Police were conducting an OUI Roadblock, as referred to as a Sobriety Checkpoint, on Route 18 in Abington. The Client, who was returning from a wedding, approached the checkpoint in his vehicle. At the checkpoint, the State Trooper believed that the Client was exhibiting signs of intoxication so he had the client get out of his car and submit to field sobriety tests. The State Trooper found that the client failed three of the field sobriety tests. The State Trooper had the client blow into a portable breath test device, which showed that the client had a blood alcohol content of 0.81%, which is above the legal limit in Massachusetts. The State Trooper then arrested the client and charged with Operating under the Influence of Liquor.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan argued that his Client was unlawfully detained by the State Trooper. Specifically, Attorney Noonan argued that the State Trooper did not have enough evidence to order his Client to get out of his vehicle and submit to the field sobriety tests. At a Hearing in which the State Trooper testified, Attorney Noonan proved that the only evidence of possible intoxication that led the Trooper to detain his client was the Trooper’s observation that the Client’s eyes were glassy and bloodshot. Attorney Noonan introduced a color copy of the Client’s booking photo, which clearly showed that his Client did not have glassy or bloodshot eyes. The Judge agreed with Attorney Noonan that the State Trooper did not have enough evidence to detain his client. Therefore, the Judge suppressed all evidence that was obtained as a result of his Client’s unlawful detention, which included all field sobriety tests and the breath test result of 0.81%. Because the majority of the evidence was suppressed, the District Attorney was forced to dismiss the case.

FELONY LARCENY CHARGE AGAINST MECHANIC FROM CARVER IS REDUCED TO A MISDEMEANOR UPON PROOF BY THE DEFENSE THAT THE VALUE OF STOLEN PROPERTY WAS UNDER $250.

Client, a 48 year-old Mechanic from Carver, was arrested at the Sears Department Store in the Braintree Mall for allegedly stealing merchandise with his wife. The Loss Prevention Department at Sears observed the Client and his Wife conceal merchandise in a shopping bag. The Security Guard observed the wife try on a Lands End Jacket and hand it to the Client who then walked out of the store without paying for the Lands End Jacket. The Client’s wife walked out of the store with stolen merchandise in her shopping bag. According to the Police Report, the value of all the stolen items was $346.98. The Client was charged with Larceny over $250, which is a felony. What distinguishes a felony larceny from a misdemeanor larceny is the value of the stolen items. If the value of the stolen items is over $250, it is a felony.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan conducted an investigation and contacted the Loss Prevention Department at Sears and discovered that the value of the Lands End Jacket, stolen by the client, was $169.00. Attorney Noonan filed a Motion to Dismiss the felony Larceny over $250 charge on the grounds that the evidence discovered by the defense showed that the value of the stolen item was under $250. The District Attorney agreed to reduce the felony to a misdemeanor.

Docket No.: 1315 CR 5197

CHARGES AGAINST BROCKTON MAN FOR HITTING VICTIM IN THE HEAD WITH A BASEBALL BAT ARE DISMISSED AS THE TRIAL WAS UNDERWAY.

On 09/09/13, Brockton Police were called to Panorama Pizza in Brockton for a report of a male bleeding profusely from his head after being struck in the head with a baseball bat. Upon arrival, police observed trails of blood in the parking lot and large pools of blood inside Panorama Pizza. The Defendant, a 29 year-old pizza delivery man, admitted to police that he struck the victim in the head with a baseball bat but that it was in self-defense. Due to the severity of the head injury and the amount of blood loss, the victim was taken by helicopter to the hospital in Boston where he stayed for almost one week.

The Defendant was charged with Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon (G.L. c. 265, §15A), a felony offense punishable up to 10 years in state prison.

The Noonan Defense Team thoroughly prepared the case for trial where they intended to assert that the Defendant was justified in using deadly force in self-defense. The Defendant and the victim were employees at Panorama Pizza in Brockton. The Noonan Defense Team interviewed the other employees at the pizza shop and intended to have all three employees testify at trial. At the trial, the Commonwealth moved to introduce a surveillance video, which showed the Defendant strike the victim in the head with the baseball bat.

Attorney Patrick J. Noonan sought to introduce the following evidence at trial: The pizza shop employees would testify that the victim had a reputation for being a violent and quarrelsome person. The employees would testify that the victim would show up to the pizza shop on a regular basis highly intoxicated and would act aggressively toward the employees. The employees would testify to approximately 10 instances where the victim would threaten to cause bodily harm to the Defendant. The employees would testify to an incident where the victim threatened a police officer and was almost arrested. Finally, the employees would testify to an incident that occurred at 8:00 p.m. just one hour before the assault in question where the victim showed up to the pizza shop highly intoxicated and made threats to the manager and the Defendant. Despite the efforts of the manager and the Defendant, the victim refused to leave and go home. The victim remained outside the pizza shop where he proceeded to stare at the Defendant in a threatening manner. At the top of his lungs, the victim screamed threats to cause bodily harm to the Defendant. The victim leaned against the Defendant’s car and waited for him to come outside knowing that the Defendant would eventually have to go to his car to deliver pizzas. Fearing that the victim would physically attack him, the Defendant called the police to have the victim removed from the premises. The police arrived and removed the victim from the premises.

One hour after being removed from the premises by the police, the victim returned to the pizza shop where he confronted the Defendant in the parking lot. As the Defendant was exiting his car, he observed the victim quickly approaching him in an aggressive manner. Fearing that the victim was about to attack him, the Defendant grabbed a miniature-sized baseball bat that he kept in his car for protection. The victim got in the Defendant’s face and made threats to “kill him.” Prior to using the bat in self-defense, the Defendant pushed the victim back and yelled for him to “back up” but the victim continued with his threats to kill him. With no other alternative and having a legitimate fear that the victim would seriously harm him, the Defendant struck the victim in the head with the baseball bat. The victim was completely unfazed by the blow to the head and continued to pursue the Defendant who then ran inside the pizza shop for safety.

Attorney Patrick J. Noonan intended to call an expert witness in Toxicology and Physiology. The expert witness would testify that the victim had a blood alcohol level of 0.24 when he showed up to the pizza shop at 8:00 p.m. and that the victim had a blood alcohol level of 0.22 when he showed up an hour later and confronted the Defendant in the parking lot. The expert witness would also testify as to the signs and symptoms that a person exhibits in this state of intoxication, which include: exaggerated emotional states (such as rage), emotional instability, loss of critical judgment, and increased pain threshold.

At the start of the trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan argued a Motion in Limine to introduce evidence of the victim’s violent character and to introduce six specific instances of violence committed by the victim. The DA objected and moved to exclude each of the six instances of violence committed by the victim. After a hearing, the trial judge ruled that Attorney Noonan could introduce 4 of the 6 instances of violence committed by the victim. In addition, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan moved to introduce testimony from his expert as to the level of the victim’s intoxication along with the mental state and behavior associated with such a high level of intoxication. Again, the DA objected and moved to exclude the expert from testifying. After a hearing, the trial judge ruled that Attorney Noonan could introduce the proposed testimony from his expert.

Result: After the hearing in which the trial judge ruled that Attorney Patrick J. Noonan could introduce evidence of the victim’s violent character, the four specific instances of violence committed by the victim, and the expert testimony as to the victim’s high level of intoxication, the DA moved to dismiss the case before the jury was empaneled.

“Man beaten with baseball bat outside Brockton pizza shop.” http://www.wcvb.com/article/man-beaten-with-baseball-bat-outside-brockton-pizza-shop/8188389

Docket No.: 1632 CR 5402

ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN PERSUADES DA TO DISMISS ALL CHARGES SO LONG AS THE DEFENDANT CONTINUES WITH HIS MENTAL HEALTH TREATMENT.

The Defendant was a 24 year-old Lakeville man who was an Analyst for a medical technology company and had no criminal record. The Defendant’s employer contacted the Defendant’s father and reported that the Defendant abruptly left work and left a picture on his desk of loaded firearm. Later that day, police responded to a residence in Freetown due to the home’s alarm system being activated. Upon arrival, Defendant answered the front door holding a bottle of wine and he admitted that he did not live there.

Police arrested the Defendant and charged him with: Breaking and Entering in the daytime with the intent to commit a felony under G.L. c. 266, §18, a felony punishable up to 10 years in state prison. Due to the damage caused throughout the home, police charged the Defendant with Vandalism under G.L. c. 266, §126A, a felony offense punishable up to 3 years in state prison and a mandatory one year loss of driver’s license.

Back at the Freetown Police Station, the Defendant’s behavior became increasingly bizarre. In his jail cell, Defendant stripped naked and proceeded to exercise and do push-ups. Defendant made statements that made no sense and would freak out whenever officers approached him. It turned out that the home the Defendant broke into was his childhood home. Defendant had not lived there since he was very young and gave no explanation as to why he decided to break in.

Due to his bizarre, unusual, and erratic behavior, police had the Defendant taken to hospital for an evaluation. The emergency room physician made out an Application for Temporary Involuntary Hospitalization pursuant to Section 12(a), as he believed that the Defendant was suffering from a mental illness and posed a likelihood of serious harm to himself or others.

The Defendant was committed to an impatient mental health facility where he exhibited manic psychotic-type behaviors. He believed he worked at the hospital as an entrepreneur. He also stated that he was a member of the hospital’s staff. He was seen dancing in the hallways. He believed messages were being communicated to him through the television set and he even attempted to escape from the facility by posing as a hospital employee. Defendant was diagnosed as suffering from Major depressive disorder, severe, with psychotic features and possibly Schizophrenia.

At his first court date, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan requested that the District Attorney’s Office place his client on Pretrial Probation for one-year with certain conditions. At first, the DA’s Office refused Attorney Noonan’s proposal and stated that the Defendant was not an appropriate candidate for Pretrial Probation.

Attorney Patrick J. Noonan presented a package to the DA in support of his request for Pretrial Probation, which included the following: First, Attorney Noonan spoke to the homeowners who knew the Defendant and his family and the homeowners stated that they had no desire to press charges and they did not seek any restitution for the damage to their home. Second, Attorney Noonan provided the DA with documentation regarding the Defendant’s mental health treatment. Attorney Noonan provided the DA with a letter from the Defendant’s Psychiatrist who stated that the Defendant’s mental condition has stabilized and he was doing very well with the medications he was prescribed. In addition, Attorney Noonan provided the DA with a letter from the Defendant’s mental health counselor who stated that the Defendant’s mental condition has stabilized and he was doing very well with weekly therapy sessions. The psychiatrist and mental health counselor believed that the incident was due to the sudden onset of an untreated mental illness and not due to any criminal intent. Attorney Noonan provided the DA with documentation showing that the Defendant signed a one-year contract to work as an Analyst for a very reputable company. Lastly, Attorney Noonan argued that the incident was caused by a sudden, acute mental illness and not the result of any criminal intent.

Result: After reviewing all the information and documentation provided by Attorney Patrick J. Noonan, the DA’s Office changed its position and agreed that the Defendant was not a criminal but a person who suffered from a legitimate mental illness, which was the cause of the whole incident. The DA’s Office agreed with Attorney Noonan’s terms that all charges would be dismissed outright after one-year so long as the Defendant continues with his present course of treatment. With Pretrial Probation, the Defendant did not have to admit that he committed a crime.

ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN CONVINCES A JUDGE TO VACATE AN OLD CONVICTION FOR A CRIME AGAINST THE PUBLIC JUSTICE AND THEN SUCCESSFULLY PETITIONS THE COMMISSIONER OF PROBATION TO SEAL IT FROM HIS CLIENT’S RECORD.

Client is a 70 year-old accountant, grandmother, and former drug-addict who had an old felony conviction from 1984 for smuggling drugs into a prison. The client had turned her life around but was always haunted by her past. Back in the 1980s, client had a terrible drug addiction. In 1984, she was arrested for attempting to smuggle cocaine into a prison for an inmate. She was convicted of the serious felony offense of Giving a Prisoner a Controlled Substance. That was the last time the client ever had any involvement with police or the court system. She committed herself to treatment and lived a life of sobriety ever since. She went back to school and earned a degree in Accounting and graduated at the top of her class with Highest Honors. She has been employed as an Accountant for over 30 years and has held the same job for nearly 15 years. Despite the remarkable turnaround in her life, she was always haunted by her old felony conviction, which was a constant reminder of her past. She petitioned the Commissioner of Probation in Boston to seal the felony conviction from her record. Regrettably, she was informed that the conviction was non-sealable because it was a Crime against the Public Justice. Her only hope was to have the felony conviction vacated, which she believed was impossible. Other attorneys told her that convincing a judge to vacate a conviction for this charge would be very difficult. In a leap of faith, she contacted Attorney Patrick J. Noonan who agreed to take on the case.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan made a compelling argument to a Judge of the Brockton District Court to vacate his client’s felony conviction. In a rare case, the Judge entered an order and vacated a conviction for a Crime against the Public Justice. With the conviction vacated, the Commissioner of Probation agreed to seal the charge from the client’s record.

Docket No.: 1515 CR 0403

ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN CONVINCES JUDGE TO ORDER DRUG TREATMENT INSTEAD OF JAIL TIME FOR MAN WHO OVERDOSED ON HEROIN WITH AUTISTIC CHILD IN CAR.

Brockton Police were dispatched to the Mobile Gas Station in Brockton for a report of a male who had overdosed in his car with a small child in the backseat. When officers arrived, Defendant was slumped over the steering wheel with the engine running, the car in gear, and the car in reverse. Officers had to smash the window to gain access to the Defendant who was unconscious. Defendant had overdosed after injecting himself with heroin. Officers had to administer two separate doses of the overdose-reversing drug Narcan in order to revive the Defendant. The Defendant’s 10 year-old severely autistic son was in the backseat. The child was unable to speak due to his severe autism. Police found heroin and syringes in the car. The heroin was tested and found to contain the highly volatile substance Fentanyl. The Defendant admitted to police that he drove to the gas station and that he consumed heroin. Defendant was charged with: Operating under the Influence of Drugs, Child Endangerment, and Possession of Fentanyl.

Result: The case was un-triable, as the Commonwealth would have little difficulty proving its case. Attorney Noonan had no alternative but to plea his client out. The District Attorney asked the Judge to lock the Defendant up for 90 days. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan requested that his client be given a suspended sentence, instead of jail time, and placed on probation for three years with conditions aimed at treating his drug addiction. The Judge agreed with Attorney Noonan and imposed a suspended sentence of 6 months with three years of probation and conditions of drug treatment.

“Brockton overdosed driver avoids jail time in favor of treatment.” http://saugus.wickedlocal.com/news/20170224/brockton-overdosed-driver-avoids-jail-time-in-favor-of-treatment

Client is a 51-year-old Electrical Engineer from Taunton who is married with three children. Client has been an avid hunter and shooter and a big believer in the Second Amendment right to bear arms. Guns have been a part of his life since he was a young kid. At age 16, he was issued a Firearms Identification Card. Client has had a License to Carry since 1995. He had been an active member of the National Rifle Association (NRA), the Gun Owner’s Action League of Massachusetts (GOAL), and Taunton Rifle and Pistol Club. He has advanced training in firearms. He is a member of Team Glock a competitive team of shooting professionals.

Since 1995, the client has had a License to Carry (LTC) but in 2016 the Police Department denied his Application to Renew his LTC because he had a conviction for a firearms offense. Specifically, the Client pled guilty to the offense of Leaving a Firearm in a Motor Vehicle. According to the Police Department, the conviction disqualified the client from getting an LTC.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan petitioned the Chief of Police to renew his client’s license to carry firearms. Under the law, a conviction for a violation of any firearms law disqualifies an applicant from getting an LTC. Here, Client’s LTC renewal was denied because he had a conviction for violating a firearms law. However, Attorney Noonan pointed out that: in order for a firearms violation to be a disqualifier, the firearms violation must carry a penalty of imprisonment. In his client’s case, the only punishment his client received for the firearms violation was a fine of $125.00. After considering Attorney Patrick J. Noonan’s arguments, the client’s license to carry firearms was renewed.

DA’S OFFICE ARGUES THAT DEFENDANT IS TOO DANGEROUS TO RELEASE FROM JAIL BUT ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN WINS HIS CLIENT’S RELEASE.

A Grand Jury returned 7 indictments against the Defendant for: Kidnapping, Assault & Battery on an Elderly Person, Assault & Battery with Dangerous Weapon on an Elderly Person (two counts), Assault & Battery with a Dangerous Weapon Causing Serious Bodily Injury, and Assault & Battery on an Elderly Person Causing Serious Bodily Injury.

Defendant resided in the same home with his 83 year-old mother, the alleged victim. Police received a call from the alleged victim’s other son who was concerned that the Defendant may have the mother tied to a chair. A police officer was dispatched to the home. The officer looked into the window and saw the alleged victim lying on a couch waving her arms in the air. The officer went to the side door. Defendant opened the door and allowed the officer inside. The officer observed dried blood on the Defendant’s shirt. The officer heard the alleged victim yelling for help from the living room. As the officer made his way to the living room, he observed dried blood droplets on the floor. The alleged victim told the officer that the Defendant had assaulted her the day before. Specifically, she alleged that the Defendant threw her walker at her leg causing a laceration to her leg. She claimed that the blood droplets on the floor were from her leg injury. Photographs were taken of the leg laceration. She was taken to the hospital.

From that point on, the alleged victim would go on to make a series of false allegations against the Defendant. She alleged that the Defendant held her against her will. She alleged that he took the phone away to prevent her from calling for help. She alleged that the Defendant physically abused her, on multiple occasions, to the point where she needed to go to the hospital. She alleged that the Defendant would not feed her. She alleged that the Defendant would make awful statements to her. She alleged that the Defendant stole money from her. She believed the Defendant would kill her. The Defendant denies all these false allegations.

On January 5, 2017, the DA’s Office requested that the Court hold the Defendant in custody (in jail) for 90 days or until his trial because he was too dangerous to release. As the Defendant was in jail awaiting his Dangerousness Hearing, he retained Attorney Patrick J. Noonan. Attorney Noonan dropped everything he was doing and came to his client’s aid.

Result: After a two-day hearing, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan was successful in getting his client released from jail. If the Judge sided with the DA, the client would have been held in jail for 90 days or until his trial.

Indictments: 2013 -303

DEFENDANT WAS FACING LIFE IN PRISON BUT DUE TO THE RELENTLESS EFFORTS OF THE NOONAN DEFENSE TEAM ALL CHARGES WERE DROPPED ON THE DAY OF TRIAL.

In 2013, a Grand Jury returned the following 11 indictments against the Defendant: 2 indictments for Rape of Child by Force, an offense which carries a sentence in state prison for life or for any term of years; 2 indictments for Assault with Intent to Rape a Child, an offense which carries a sentence in state prison for life or for any term of years; 2 indictments for Incest, an offense which carries a maximum sentence of 20 years; and 5 indictments for Indecent Assault and Battery on a Child, an offense which carries a maximum sentence of 10 years.

The case was very involved, highly complex, thoroughly investigated, and strongly prosecuted. The Commonwealth was very intent on prosecuting the case to the fullest extent of the law. The Noonan Defense Team was even more intent on proving their client’s innocence. On January 3, 2017, the Noonan Defense Team came to trial ready to attack. On the day of trial, the Commonwealth filed a Nolle Prosequi on all charges “in the interest of justice.” A Nolle Prosequi is the formal determination of the District Attorney that he will no longer prosecute the case.

Result: Our client was charged with very serious offenses carrying the possibility of LIFE IN PRISON but due to relentless efforts of the Noonan Defense Team the District Attorney’s Office, on the day of trial, decided that they will no longer prosecute the case.

“Easton man arraigned on sexual assault indictment charges.”

FELONY DRUG CHARGE AGAINST DEFENDANT WHO WAS A PASSENGER IN A CAR WITH 15 POUNDS OF MARIJUANA AND $68,000 IN CASH IS REDUCED TO MISDEMEANOR OFFENSE OF SIMPLE POSSESSION AND WILL BE DISMISSED AFTER 6 MONTHS OF PROBATION WITH NO CONVICTION

In August of 2017, Brockton Police pulled a vehicle over for not having an inspection sticker. The vehicle had three occupants: the operator, a front seat passenger, and a backseat passenger. As officers approached the vehicle, they claimed to have seen silhouettes of the occupants moving their upper torsos from side to side and looking back at the officers. Upon approaching the vehicle, police observed a marijuana blunt burning in the ashtray. Police observed a backpack on the floor behind the driver’s seat. The officer asked if the backpack contained any weapons, whereupon the operator was alleged to have suddenly turned around to retrieve the backpack, causing officers to supposedly fear for their safety. Under the guise of fearing for their safety, officers ordered all three occupants to exit the vehicle. Inside the backpack, officers found 362 grams of marijuana. Officers searched the trunk and found 15 bags of marijuana totaling 15 pounds. Finally, officers found over $68,000 in cash in the vehicle. All three defendants were charged with Possession with Intent to Distribute Class D-Marijuana (G.L. c. 94C, 32C) and Conspiracy to Violate the Drug Laws (G.L. c. 94C, §40).

Result: The three defendants filed a Motion to Suppress the evidence (i.e., the marijuana) arguing, among other things, that the evidence was obtained as a result of an unlawful search and seizure. The hearing on the Motion to Suppress had been scheduled five times. The fifth time that the Motion to Suppress had been scheduled, the Commonwealth offered to reduce the Defendant’s felony charge to the misdemeanor offense of simple possession of marijuana and to dismiss the case after six-months of unsupervised probation. If the Defendant stays out of trouble for six months, the case will be dismissed resulting in no conviction.

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CHARGE AGAINST MANSFIELD MAN DISMISSED AFTER ALLEGED VICTIM INVOKES PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION

Defendant, a 33 year-old Construction Project Manager and Mansfield resident, with no criminal record, was charged with Assault and Battery on a Family / Household Member (G.L. c. 265, §13M) in the Framingham District Court. Framingham Police were called to a residence for a family problem. Upon arrival, police spoke with the Defendant’s girlfriend who reported that the Defendant pushed her causing her to fall down and strike a coffee table. The girlfriend showed the police injuries to her chest and arms. After getting the girlfriend’s story, police arrested the Defendant.

Result: The Defense Team interviewed the girlfriend who stated that she told the District Attorney’s Office that she sustained her injuries as a result of being intoxicated and falling down, and that her injuries did not come from the Defendant. Furthermore, the girlfriend told the Defense Team that she called the police station, almost every hour, after the Defendant had been arrested because she wanted him released from jail and she felt bad that he had been arrested. At the Defendant’s arraignment, the girlfriend stated that she did not want a “stay away” or “no contact order” because she was not in any fear of the Defendant and she wanted him to return home. In the police report, the girlfriend told police that her argument with the Defendant escalated into a pushing and shoving match. If the girlfriend initiated a physical confrontation by pushing and shoving the Defendant, she arguably committed an assault and battery. At trial, the girlfriend asserted her Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination and elected not to testify against the Defendant and the Court dismissed the case.

FELONY ASSAULT CHARGE STEMMING FROM A BRAWL AT THE TAMBOO RESTAURANT IN BROCKTON DISMISSED AGAINST IMMIGRANT MAN FACING DEPORTATION AFTER NOONAN DEFENSE TEAM PRESENTS EVIDENCE THAT THE ALLEGED VICTIM AND HER GROUP STARTED THE FIGHT, MADE THREATS, THREW GLASSES, AND INJURED TWO PEOPLE IN THE DEFENDANT’S PARTY

Defendant, a Brockton man, with no criminal record, is a hospital worker at Newton Wellesley Hospital. On October 14, 2018, Defendant and his family went to church to celebrate the baptism of his twin babies. After the baptism, Defendant’s family booked a room at the Tamboo Restaurant in Brockton to celebrate the baptism. Inside the Tamboo, there was a dispute with another group who had booked the same room for a fashion show. There was an argument between the Defendant’s group and the Fashion Group, which culminated in a brawl between the two parties. It was alleged that the Defendant picked up a chair, threw it, and the chair struck the alleged victim in the foot. The alleged victim was taken to the hospital for the injuries to her foot. Defendant was charged with Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon (G.L. c. 265, §15A). Because the Defendant was not an American citizen, he was facing deportation if he was convicted.

Result: Prior to trial, the Noonan Defense Team provided the Commonwealth with the following evidence: Someone in the alleged victim’s group threw a glass, which almost struck one of the Defendant’s babies and a 10 year-old child. Someone in the alleged victim’s group threw a punch at the Defendant’s fiancé, as the fiancé was holding one of the Defendant’s babies. The alleged victim’s group charged over at the Defendant’s group and knocked over the Defendant’s 71 year-old future mother-in-law, which resulted in injuries to the mother-in-law. One member of the alleged victim’s group punched a woman in the Defendant’s group in the face, knocked her to the ground, whereupon other members of the alleged victim’s group proceeded to attack this woman, injuring her to the point where she had to be taken to the emergency room. One member of the alleged victim’s group threatened the Defendant’s group with a pair of scissors. During this altercation, the alleged victim’s group was making threats to cause bodily harm to the Defendant’s group. The Noonan Defense Team interviewed the manager of the restaurant who witnessed the brawl. The manager told our investigator that he did not see the Defendant throw a chair. The Noonan Defense Team was prepared to call 5 witnesses from the Defendant’s group to testify and was ready to introduce medical records of those from the Defendant’s group who were injured in the brawl, along with a 911 call made by a member of the Defendant’s group who reported that she had been assaulted by the other group. Prior to trial, the prosecutor asked the Judge to have an attorney appointed to represent the alleged victim and to her evaluate her for a potential Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. The alleged victim exercised her privilege against self-incrimination and the Commonwealth dismissed the case. As a result, the Defendant, a hard-working immigrant, and father of two twin babies, with no criminal record, will not be deported.

Click the Links Below for News Coverage on the Case: 

• “2 injured, 1 arrested in brawl at Tambo in downtown Brockton.”
• “Fight Breaks Out in Brockton Between Baby Shower, Fashion Show Attendees.”

THE NOONAN DEFENSE TEAM CONVINCES THE PROSECUTION TO DROP CHARGES OF HUMAN TRAFFICKING, KIDNAPPING, ASSAULT & BATTERY, AND STRANGULATION AGAINST EVERETT MAN FACING POTENTIAL LIFE SENTENCE

Defendant was indicted by a Middlesex Grand Jury on the charges of: Trafficking of a Person under 18 for Sexual Servitude, (G.L. c. 265, § 50), Kidnapping (G.L. c. 265, § 26), multiple counts of Strangulation or Suffocation (G.L. c. 265, § 15D), and multiple counts of Assault and Battery (G.L. c. 265, § 13A). The Sex Trafficking charge carries a maximum sentence of life in prison and a minimum mandatory sentence of 5 years in State Prison. If convicted on all charges, the Defendant was facing a serious prison sentence.

Defendant was a 21 year-old man, with no criminal record, who lived with his parents and three siblings in Everett and he worked as a grocery delivery driver. He was in a dating relationship with the alleged victim (“A.V.”) who was 17 years-old at the time they met. In November 5, 2018, A.V. reported to police that she had been beaten by the Defendant on 11.01.18. Police photographed injuries to her face, neck, arms, and body. A.V. told police that the Defendant kidnapped her on 11.01.18 in his vehicle and he put on the child safety locks so he couldn’t escape. She claimed that the Defendant, and his friend, drove to an area where the Defendant choked her and beat her. After the alleged kidnapping, A.V. got out of the Defendant’s car and walked to her apartment in Medford.

A.V. went on to state that the Defendant force her into prostitution. She claimed that the Defendant created an online dating profile for her and forced her to go out of dates with men, have sex with men for money, and to rob the men. She went on to describe a history of the Defendant physically abusing, choking, and beating her.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan immediately began a thorough investigation and his Defense Team discovered exculpatory evidence which was used to convince the prosecution to drop the case. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan discovered that A.V. committed perjury and lied under oath when she falsely claimed that was pregnant at the time the Defendant had allegedly beaten her. She claimed that she lost the baby as a result of the Defendant’s assault. The Defense Team found that A.V. was never pregnant. Because of this huge lie, A.V. had a Fifth Amendment issue if she were to testify at trial, which meant that: if A.V. testified at trial, she would incriminate herself by admitting that she lied about being pregnant. A.V. exercised her Fifth Amendment privilege and elected not to testify at trial. Without A.V.’s testimony, the Commonwealth had to drop the charges. The Defense Team discovered other evidence favorable to the defense. The Defense Team discovered that A.V.’s apartment building had video cameras, which would have shown A.V. returning home after she was allegedly kidnapped and beaten by the Defendant. The Defense believed that the video would have shown A.V. walking to her apartment with no signs that she had been kidnapped or beaten. We discovered that this video existed but the Commonwealth failed to obtain it. Next, A.V. had to provide her cell phone to police. The prosecution provided the Defense with an Extraction Report of the date on A.V.’s phone. However, A.V. deleted a substantial amount of data from her phone prior to handing it over to police. The Defense Team had an expert who was prepared to recover all the content that A.V. had deleted from her phone. Next, the Defense Team consulted with an expert medical doctor who reviewed the photographs of the injuries to A.V.’s face. The expert was of the opinion that the markings to A.V.’s face were not consistent with her account that the Defendant had punched her repeatedly in the face. If the Defendant repeated punched A.V. in the face, there would be obvious signs of swelling but there was no swelling. The photos of the face did not have the appearance of trauma inflicted injuries. The photos of the face and eyes showed skin discoloration, which could have been from simple skin irritation, not trauma. Next, the Defense Team filed a motion seeking a court order of A.V.’s online dating profile, as the Defense Team believed that the records would show that A.V. was already using this online dating service prior to even meeting the Defendant. Lastly, the Defense Team presented evidence that A.V. had a motive to falsely accuse the Defendant. Defendant had broken up with A.V. and blocked her from every source, such as cell phone and social media. A.V. couldn’t accept the fact that the Defendant had broken up with her. A.V. contacted the Defendant and threatened to commit suicide if the Defendant did not answer her calls or take her back as his girlfriend. A.V. was so desperate to remain in a relationship with the Defendant that she lied about being pregnant. The Defense obtained a text message that A.V.’s mother sent to the Defendant’s mother, which A.V.’s mother sent prior to A.V. calling the police. In the text, A.V.’s mother states that they will not go to the police if the Defendant makes up with A.V. and takes her back. Based on all the evidence obtained as a result of the Noonan Defense Team’s investigation, the prosecution dropped all charges.

DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEEKS TO JAIL THE DEFENDANT FOR 60 DAYS FOR VIOLATING CONDITIONS OF HIS RELEASE BUT ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN PRESENTS EVIDENCE THAT THE VIOLATIONS WERE TRIGGERED BY ERRORS IN PAPERWORK

Defendant was arraigned in the Brockton Superior Court on charges of Trafficking in Cocaine (G.L. c. 94C, §32E(b)), Possession with Intent to Distribute Class D-Marijuana (G.L. c. 94C, §32C), and Possession with Intent to Distribute Class B-Oxycodone). He was released on a $10,000 cash bail with the following conditions: GPS monitoring with a curfew of 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. The Commonwealth sought to jail the Defendant for 60 days for violating his curfew on four separate occasions by not returning home by 8:00 p.m. Defendant was arrested on a warrant and contacted Attorney Patrick J. Noonan.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan reviewed all the paperwork and records and he discovered that the GPS Company was wrongly reporting violations due to errors and miscommunications. Whenever the Defendant violated curfew, the GPS Company would send a notification to probation that there was a violation. Defendant’s original curfew ended at 8:00 p.m. but Attorney Noonan found that the curfew was extended to 9:00 p.m. but the new curfew time was not reported to the GPS Company. Each time the Defendant returned home after 8:00 p.m., the GPS Company reported a violation. However, on each occasion, the Defendant arrived home before 9:00 p.m., which was not a violation. Attorney Noonan brought the error to the Judge’s attention. The Judge did not find the Defendant in violation and the Defendant was released from jail.

AFTER AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING IN WHICH THE POLICE AND THE DEFENDANT TESTIFIED, ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN OBTAINS COURT ORDER TO SEAL THE CRIMINAL RECORD OF A MENTAL HEALTH PROFESSIONAL AND SOCIAL WORKER

Defendant, a Lakeville resident, is a highly educated professional who spent a career devoted to the service of children and families suffering from issues relating to mental health, behavioral health, substance abuse, and disabilities. She had no criminal record until an unfortunate incident in 2010 when her husband called the police to report that he had been physically assaulted by the Defendant. The husband told police that the Defendant was upset with him and slapped him across the face. The husband showed police marks to his face, which included a red mark, swelling, and bruising. Based on the husband’s allegation of a physical assault, and coupled with his visible injuries, police arrested and charged the Defendant with Assault and Battery under G.L. c. 265, §13A.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan filed a motion and petition to seal his client’s criminal record under the record sealing statutes specifically, G.L. c. 276, 100C. At a hearing, Attorney Noonan called a police officer who testified about a false report the husband had previously filed against the Defendant where he falsely accused her assault and was denied a restraining order against her. About one-month before the assault and battery incident, the husband went to the police station to report that the Defendant had assaulted him. The husband told this officer that he wanted to obtain full custody of their children. The husband further stated that his attorney advised him to get his wife to push him in front of the kids so that he may obtain full custody of them. The husband stated that he attempted to have his wife assault him in front of the kids but he was unsuccessful. The husband requested a restraining order against his wife in order to get custody of his kids but his first request for a restraining order was denied for lack of evidence. Attorney Noonan argued that the Assault & Battery charge, which resulted in his client’s arrest, was the result of another false allegation by the husband who was motivated to get custody of the kids and was willing to go to extreme lengths to get custody, which included a false allegation of abuse. Attorney Noonan introduced pleadings from the divorce case where the husband tried using the Assault and Battery case as leverage to gain custody of the children. Attorney Noonan has his client testify about how the existence of the criminal record has adversely affected her life. Evidence was introduced about how the criminal record affected her ability to obtain employment. In one instance, she was overly qualified for a position and she was recommended for the position after a serious of interviews but she was later denied the position after a criminal background check revealed the Assault and Battery. After hearing all the evidence, the Judge ordered the sealing of the criminal record. Now, the Defendant can truthfully state on a job application that she has never been arrested, charged, or convicted of a crime.

THREATS TO COMMIT A MASS SHOOTING DISMISSED AT TRIAL, AS THE NOONAN DEFENSE TEAM INTERVIEWED THE ALLEGED VICTIM WHO STATED THAT SHE DID NOT BELIEVE THAT THE DEFENDANT’S STATEMENT WAS A LEGITIMATE THREAT AND SHE MADE EXCULPATORY STATEMENTS TO THE DEFENSE, WHICH WERE NOT CONTAINED IN THE POLICE REPORT.

Defendant was a Loss Prevention Officer at a department store in the Braintree Mall. Defendant resigned from the store after getting a new job. The Store Manager reported to the police that the Defendant made disturbing comments to a female employee. The police interviewed the female employee who stated that she had a disturbing conversation with the Defendant in October, after the Las Vegas mass shooting. She told police that the Defendant approached her and stated: “How would you like it if I came in here and started shooting everyone? Would that make you afraid?” She told police that the Defendant threatened to shoot her in the mass shooting because she would be caught in the gunfire. She told police that the statements made her nervous and afraid. Based on the female employee’s statements to police, Defendant was charged with Threats to Commit a Crime (G.L. c. 275, §2), the threat being to commit a mass shooting. Given the nature of the threat involving a mass shooting, the case was taken very seriously by law enforcement given the history of mass shootings in the United States, including the Las Vegas shooting, the Parkland shooting, the Virginia Tech shooting, the Sandy Hook shooting, and the more recent shootings in El Paso, Texas and Dayton, Ohio.

Result: In preparing for trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan had his private investigator interview the female employee (i.e., the alleged victim). The female employee gave a much different story to the defense. Her statements to the defense were much different than what was portrayed in the police report. She told the defense that the Defendant approached her work station. She described the Defendant’s demeanor as joking and laughing. She stated that it was a casual conversation and the Defendant did not appear upset or angry. She stated that she did not believe that the Defendant’s statement was meant to be taken as a legitimate threat. She did not call 911 or report it to police. She mentioned it to another co-worker and it was this co-worker who suggested that she report it to management. It was only after the co-worker made this suggestion that she reported it to management. She did not think that her report to management would result in any criminal charges. In fact, she felt bad that the Defendant was charged. Even though the Defendant’s statement was made in the wake of the Las Vegas shooting in October, the incident was not immediately reported to police. The department store decided to report the incident to law enforcement the day after the Parkland Shooting. Based on the statements by the female employee to the defense team, the District Attorney’s Office dismissed the charge at trial.

ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN WINS NOT GUILTY IN 2ND OFFENSE OUI-LIQUOR CASE AFTER CONVINCING THE JUDGE THAT THE COMMONWEALTH FAILED TO PROVE THAT THE DEFENDANT WAS INTOXICATED

Stoughton Police were dispatched to a parking lot at approximately 3:00 a.m. for a report of an unconscious male passed out in the driver’s seat of a parked vehicle. The officer approached the Defendant’s vehicle and observed him to be passed out behind the wheel. The officer knocked on the window several times but the Defendant did not respond. After knocking several times, the Defendant finally woke up. In waking up, the Defendant was disoriented and immediately started to place his hand on the gear shift. The officer instructed the Defendant to step out of the vehicle. Defendant was unsteady on his feet. The officer stated that the Defendant was unable to give any answers or responses to the officer’s questions. The officer had to repeat his questions several times before getting a response from the Defendant. The Defendant spoke slowly and deliberately. He stated that he was at Club Alex’s in Stoughton. Because the Defendant was parked in the parking lot of an apartment complex, the officer asked the Defendant if he was visiting a friend. Defendant stated that he was visiting a friend but he was unable to provide any name to the officer. The Defendant stated the word “Uber” and started flipping through his phone to call an Uber but he did not have the Uber application on his phone. In his police report, the officer states that there was a cup of alcohol in the cup holder. The officer formed the opinion that the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol. Because the Defendant had previously convicted of OUI, he was charged with Operating under the Influence of Alcohol (second offense). See G.L. c. 90, §24.

Result: At trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan pointed out the stark differences in the arresting officer’s testimony verses the booking officer’s testimony. The booking officer had over 20 years of experience in law enforcement. Even though the booking officer had booked the Defendant for over one-hour, the booking officer did not observe the telltale signs of intoxication. For example, the booking officer did not observe: that the Defendant had glassy or bloodshot eyes, that the Defendant had slurred speech, or that the Defendant had an odor of alcohol on his breath. Attorney Noonan pointed out that none of the officers had asked the Defendant if he had any physical or medical conditions. The observations of alleged intoxication could have been the result of a physical or medical condition, and not from the consumption of any alcohol. None of the officers had ever asked the Defendant if he had consumed any alcohol. The Commonwealth introduced the booking video at trial. The Commonwealth argued that the Defendant appeared intoxicated on the video, and pointed out a portion of the video where the Defendant lost his balance and stumbled backwards. However, Attorney Noonan highlighted other parts of the booking video where the Defendant appeared sober, such as portions of the video where the Defendant was walking, standing, and had no difficulty standing for his booking photo or standing when being fingerprinted. After the trial, the Judge found the Defendant not guilty. Because this was a second offense OUI, Defendant’s driver’s license was suspended for two years. However, Attorney Noonan obtained a Court Order restoring the Defendant’s driver’s license.

RANDOLPH DRUG DEALER FOUND NOT GUILTY IN FATAL OVERDOSE AFTER THE NOONAN DEFENSE TEAM CONVINCES JURY THERE WAS INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO PROVE THAT THEIR CLIENT SOLD THE DRUGS THAT CAUSED THE VICTIM’S OVERDOSE DEATH

The Commonwealth alleged that the Defendant sold Heroin and Fentanyl to a Stoughton man who then took the drugs and died of an overdose. The Commonwealth charged the Defendant with 2 counts of Distribution of Heroin and Fentanyl for allegedly selling the drugs that killed the overdose victim. After an investigation, the Commonwealth charged the Defendant with 2 additional counts of Possession with Intent to Distribute Heroin and Fentanyl. On September 1, 2016, Stoughton Police were called to the residence of the male victim who they found dead on the floor of an apparent drug overdose. Police found drugs on the male victim. Police found a rolled up $20 bill with brown powder on the tip of it, which tested positive for Heroin and Fentanyl. Police also found a folded up lottery ticket, which contained a powdery substance that tested positive for Heroin and Fentanyl. The police searched the victim’s phone and saw text messages between the victim and the Defendant from the night before where they both agreed to meet each other. Police then began to text the Defendant from the victim’s phone and, posing as the victim, police set up a drug transaction with the Defendant. When the Defendant showed up for the drug deal, police arrested him and found a folded lottery ticket containing Heroin and Fentanyl, which resulted in the two additional counts of Possession with Intent to Distribute Heroin and Fentanyl.

Result:

The Noonan Defense Team attacked the government’s case that the Defendant sold the Heroin and Fentanyl to the male victim, which caused his fatal overdose. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan got the lead investigator to admit on cross-examination that he did have any evidence that the Defendant met with the male victim or distributed the drugs that killed him. Attorney Noonan attacked the government’s handling of the male victim’s cell phone. The police searched the victim’s phone and generated an Extraction Report of the data on the phone. For some strange reason, the extraction report only contained one-month of data on the victim’s phone. Attorney Noonan pointed out that the software used by police had a default setting, which automatically extracted all available data on the phone, but the government only produced one-month of data, which begged the question: What happened to all the other data? There were 1,500 contacts on the phone but only one-month of data. Attorney Noonan introduced the entirety of the call logs and text messages on the victim’s phone to show that there was no evidence of any drug transactions with the Defendant, or even a discussion about drugs. Attorney Noonan introduced a text message in which an identified contact offered to provide drugs to the victim. Attorney Noonan highlighted all the people that the victim had been in communication with on the night in question and any of these people could have been the person who provided the drugs to the victim, but those persons were not investigated. The prosecution argued that the Defendant sold the drugs to the victim because the drugs found in the victim’s possession were packaged in a lottery ticket, and when police arrested the Defendant they found drugs packaged in a lottery ticket. However, Attorney Noonan introduced text messages on the victim’s phone showing that the victim was a regular purchaser of lottery tickets, and the victim was talking about picking up lottery tickets a few days before his overdose. Attorney Noonan presented evidence showing that the victim could have been the seller of the drugs that were found on his person. Lastly, Attorney Noonan argued that this was a rushed investigation where the police started with a conclusion (that the Defendant was the drug dealer) and police only looked for evidence that would support their conclusion and ignored any evidence to the contrary.

Click on the Link for Enterprise News Coverage of the Case: “Randolph man acquitted in fatal Stoughton overdose, but guilty of possession.”

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.

AT TRIAL, DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE DISMISSES CASE AFTER THE TRIAL JUDGE RULES THAT ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN CAN INTRODUCE EVIDENCE THAT THE POLICE ENTRAPPED HIS CLIENT INTO COMITTING THE CRIME

Defendant was in a relationship with a girlfriend and they had a baby together. Defendant was originally from Florida but he moved to his girlfriend’s apartment in Plymouth where they raised their baby together. Defendant and his girlfriend were not getting along and they were arguing a lot. Defendant told his girlfriend that he was going to take the baby down to the Florida for a week to visit his family. The girlfriend agreed. The girlfriend called the Defendant several times but he did not answer. The girlfriend called the Plymouth Police to report that the Defendant had taken the baby to Florida and he was not answering her calls. The Police told the girlfriend that the Defendant had not committed any crime because there were no court orders in effect prohibiting the Defendant from taking the child. The Police instructed the girlfriend to obtain a restraining order (“RO”) against the Defendant. The girlfriend obtained an Abuse Prevention Order (G.L. c. 209A) against the Defendant. The RO ordered the Defendant to return the child to the girlfriend in Massachusetts. The RO also ordered the Defendant not to contact his girlfriend. After obtaining the RO, the girlfriend went to the Police Station with the RO paperwork. The police officer stated that he called the Defendant, on a recorded line, and advised him of the RO and the provision, which prohibited him from contacting his girlfriend. The next day, the girlfriend went to the police station to report that the Defendant called her phone in violation of the RO. As a result of this one phone call to the girlfriend, Defendant was charged with Violation of an Abuse Prevention Order (G.L. c. 209A.). When the Defendant returned to Massachusetts, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan opposed the issuance of the RO and cross-examined the girlfriend. Although the RO was extended, Attorney Noonan obtained valuable evidence on his cross-examination of the girlfriend, which he sought to introduce at the criminal trial.

Result: At trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan moved to introduce evidence that the Police entrapped the Defendant into committing the crime. Specifically, the police induced the Defendant to call his girlfriend, which was a violation of the RO. A hearing was held to determine whether the trial judge would allow Attorney Noonan to introduce his entrapment evidence. Attorney Noonan offered the following evidence of entrapment: First, at the RO hearing, Attorney Noonan elicited testimony from the girlfriend where she testified, under oath, that the Police instructed her to call and text the Defendant, which would induce a response from the Defendant, which the police could use to charge him with the crime of violating the RO. In particular, the girlfriend testified that the police officer stood right next to her and was telling her exactly what to say to the Defendant. The police officer was telling exactly what to say in her text messages to the Defendant. The police officer told her to make it sound like she the police were not telling her what to say. Clearly, the police were instructing the girlfriend and were using her as a tool to entrap the Defendant into calling her back. Second, Attorney Noonan obtained a Court Order for the girlfriend’s phone records, which contained overwhelming evidence that the police were using the girlfriend to the entrap the Defendant. Specifically, the phone records showed that the girlfriend and police exchanged 21 phone calls and they spoke for a total of 90 minutes. The phone records showed that the police would call the girlfriend, and right after she spoke to the police, the girlfriend would call the Defendant. Third, Attorney Noonan introduced evidence that the girlfriend had contacted the Defendant a total of 44 times by phone, text, and e-mail – but the Defendant did not take the bait and call her back. It was only after the girlfriend’s persistent and relentless onslaught of communications to the defendant, at the instruction of police, that the Defendant finally caved in and took the bait and called her back. Even when the girlfriend went into court to modify the RO to permit the Defendant to contact her, the Defendant still didn’t contact her. Finally, Attorney Noonan discovered that the police officer did not call the Defendant on a recorded line to advise him of the RO, even though the officer wrote in his report that he recorded the call with the Defendant. The District Attorney’s Office objected to Attorney Noonan’s proposed entrapment evidence but, after a hearing, the trial judge ruled that the entrapment evidence would come in at trial. The District Attorney’s Office then dismissed the case.

ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN GETS FELONY CONVICTION FOR BREAKING & ENTERING AGAINST TRUCK DRIVER VACATED AND THROWN OUT.

Defendant is a 48 year-old commercial truck driver, a happily married man, and a loving father. Defendant applied for a License to Carry Firearms (LTC). However, the police department denied his application for an LTC because he had a felony conviction on his record. Defendant was shocked to hear that he had a felony conviction. Defendant obtained a copy of his criminal record, which showed that he had been convicted of Breaking and Entering in the Nighttime with the Intent to Commit a Felony when he was 14 years-old. He was convicted in 1984. Defendant knew he had a juvenile case when he was really young but did not know he had been convicted of a felony. Defendant has no other criminal record. Defendant retained Attorney Patrick J. Noonan to vacate his felony conviction.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan conducted an investigation and learned that the felony Breaking & Entering charge stemmed from an incident when the Defendant, at age 14, went into a vacant home with a friend to smoke a cigarette. A neighbor reported seeing people inside the unoccupied home and the Defendant was later arrested. This was a home in the Defendant’s neighborhood that kids would use as a cut through yard. Kids cut through the yard because no one was living there. Attorney Noonan obtained records for the residence showing that it had been unoccupied at the time of the offense. Attorney Noonan sent a written request to the District Attorney’s Office requesting to vacate the conviction arguing that his client did not have the intent to commit the felony because he merely went into the unoccupied house with a friend to smoke a cigarette. His only intent was to commit a Trespass. They did not steal anything from the house. Attorney Noonan provided the DA with evidence regarding his client’s background as a hard-working guy, law-abiding citizen, and family man and the collateral consequences this old felony conviction has caused. The District Attorney’s Office reviewed the case. The DA’s Office was very reasonable and agreed to vacate the Defendant’s felony conviction. Today, the conviction was thrown out.

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CHARGES AGAINST UBER DRIVER DISMISSED AT TRIAL

Defendant, an Uber driver from Brockton, was charged in the Brockton District Court with Assault and Battery (G.L. c. 265, §13A) and Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon (G.L. c. 265, §15A). Defendant’s girlfriend called 911. In the 911 call, you can hear a female screaming “Stop!” “Leave me alone!” There is another party in the background of the call who she accuses of attacking her. During the 18-minute 911 call, you can hear the female yelling and arguing with the other party. She whispers to the 911 operator, “Hurry.” Police are sent to the Defendant’s apartment. The police found a female party hiding in the bedroom. She identified herself as the 911 caller. She tells police that the Defendant was intoxicated and angry with her. She states that the Defendant grabbed her arm and started throwing anything he could find at her. She was struck a piece of furniture. Defendant told police that they simply had a verbal argument. Police arrested the Defendant.

Result: At the first trial date, the alleged victim did not appear in court. The prosecutor sought to prove the case without the alleged victim’s testimony. In particular, the prosecutor sought to introduce the 911 call into evidence and to call the police officers who investigated the case. The trial was continued due to court congestion. On the second trial date, the alleged victim did not appear. The prosecutor asked Attorney Noonan if he would accept a plea deal, which involved his client admitting to the charges but Attorney Noonan rejected the offer. Again, the Commonwealth sought to introduce the 911 call and attempt to prove the case without the alleged victim’s testimony. However, the prosecutor was unable to get the police dispatcher to come into court in order to admit the 911 tape. The Commonwealth was unable to go forward. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan moved the Court to dismiss the charges. The charges were then dismissed.

ATTORNEY GERALD J. NOONAN AND PATRICK J. NOONAN WIN NOT GUILTY VERDICTS IN DRUNK DRIVING AND RECKLESS OPERATION CASE AFTER A TWO-DAY JURY TRIAL.

Defendant was charged with Operating under the Influence of Alcohol (G.L. c. 90, §24(1)(a)(1)) and Reckless Operation of a Motor Vehicle (G.L. c. 90, §24(2)(a)). The prosecution introduced the following evidence at trial: A Westwood Police Officer was on patrol in the parking lot of the Marriot Hotel when he observed the Defendant’s vehicle driving around the parking lot and driving around in circles with no headlights. The officer followed the vehicle, as it exited the parking lot still with no headlights on. The vehicle went through a stop sign without stopping and began to travel the wrong way down a major roadway with no headlights on. The prosecution argued that the Defendant could have killed or seriously injured someone by traveling the wrong way down a major roadway with no headlights on. When the officer approached the vehicle, he observed a rear seat passenger drinking out of a Corona beer bottle. There were three passengers in the car. A search of the car revealed an open Corona beer bottle and a nearly empty Corona beer bottle in the backseat. The prosecution introduced photos of the beer bottles for the jury. The officer asked the Defendant to exit the vehicle and to perform field sobriety tests. On the first test, the One-Leg Stand test, the officer testified that the Defendant almost hopped into the street. The officer had to terminate the test because he was concerned for the Defendant’s safety. On the next test, the 9 Step Walk and Turn, the Defendant repeatedly told the officer that he felt pressured into performing the test. The officer then administered the Alphabet test and testified that the Defendant recited the letter “z” out of order. The officer testified that the Defendant continuously swayed throughout his encounter with him. The officer testified that the Defendant swayed back and forth “like a tree in the wind.” The officer testified that the Defendant had a “strong odor” of alcohol on his breath. The officer testified that the Defendant’s speech was “extremely slurred” and that he had bloodshot eyes.

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan cross-examined the police officer for over an hour and attacked his credibility. Attorney Noonan pointed out that the officer did not ask the Defendant if he had any physical or medical conditions prior to administering the field sobriety tests. Officers are taught and trained to ask someone if they have any physical or medical conditions because those factors may affect their performance on the field sobriety tests. In this case, Defendant had a pinched nerve in his back from a prior car accident, which caused numbness in his left leg. Although the arresting officer testified that the Defendant had a strong odor of alcohol on his breath, a back-up officer testified that the Defendant did not have a strong odor of alcohol coming from him. The most crucial piece of evidence was the booking video, which served to discredit the officer’s testimony. In his closing argument, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan argued that Defendant appeared sober on the video and did not exhibit the signs of intoxication, as testified to by the police officer. On the video, Defendant was not swaying back and forth “like a tree in the wind.” There was nothing on the video to substantiate the officer’s testimony that the Defendant’s balance was so bad that he almost hopped into the street. The officer testified that he had to physically assist the Defendant out of the police cruiser and escort him into the police station. However, Attorney Noonan pointed out that the video told a completely different story. Specifically, the video showed the Defendant getting out of the police cruiser, with no assistance from anyone and with no difficulty, even though he had both arms handcuffed behind his back. Defendant walked into the police station with perfect gait and without any assistance. Attorney Noonan highlighted certain portions of the video, which demonstrated the Defendant’s sobriety. Although the Defendant drove the wrong way down the street, he immediately apologized to the officer and admitted that he made a mistake. After a two-day trial, the jury found the Defendant not guilty on all charges.

AT TRIAL, DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE OFFERS TO DISMISS CRIMINAL CHARGE OF VIOLATING A HARASSMENT ORDER AGAINST BRAINTREE MAN WITH NO CRIMINAL RECORD IF HE STAYS OUT OF TROUBLE FOR 8 MONTHS

Defendant, a happily married man in his mid-fifties with no criminal record, had a longstanding feud with his neighbors, a father, mother, and their adult son, who live across the street. In December 2017, the father and mother obtained a Harassment Prevention Order (“HPO”) (G.L. c. 258E) against the Defendant for one-year alleging that he threatened to beat them up, shouted vulgarities at them, and waved a leaf blower at them. After this HPO was issued, Defendant hired Attorney Patrick J. Noonan who immediately filed a Motion to Reconsider the judge’s decision in issuing the order, which was denied after a hearing. Attorney Noonan filed an appeal. After the HPO issued, Defendant was arrested, several days later, and charged with Violation of a Harassment Prevention Order (G.L. c. 258E, §9). The alleged victim claimed that, several days after getting the harassment order, Defendant threatened to beat him up. In December 2018, the alleged victims sought a one-year extension of the HPO. This time, Attorney Noonan was able to oppose the HPO and cross-examine the alleged victims under oath. Even though the judge extended the HPO for another year, Attorney Noonan obtained valuable evidence at the hearing to use in defense of the criminal charge. In particular, Attorney Noonan elicited evidence that, back in 2012, the three alleged victims (mother, father, and their son) attacked him, beat him, and sent him to the hospital with serious injuries. In particular, the father punched the defendant in the face sending him to the ground. The mother retrieved a wooden club from the house and handed it to the father who proceeded to beat the Defendant with hit, as the Defendant was on the ground. The adult son joined in and struck the Defendant, as he was on the ground. Attorney Noonan obtained photographs of the wooden club. As a result of the violent attack, Defendant went to the hospital with injuries, including a laceration to his forehead (requiring 6 sutures), contusions to the chest, arm, and back, and a blunt injury to his finger (which was placed in a splint).

Result: At trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan sought to introduce evidence that the three alleged victims had brutally attacked his client back in 2012. Attorney Noonan was prepared with photos of the wooden club that was used to beat his client, photos of the Defendant’s injuries, witnesses, and certified medical records of his client’s injuries. Attorney Noonan’s proposed evidence posed a serious problem for the alleged victims because they could potentially incriminate themselves if they were to testify at trial giving them what is known as a Fifth Amendment Privilege against Self-Incrimination. Prior to the trial commencing, the District Attorney’s Office offered to dismiss the criminal charge, so long as the client abides by the existing HPO, which is in effect until December of 2020.

THE DEFENSE TEAM OF PATRICK J. NOONAN AND BRENDAN J. NOONAN WIN NOT GUILTY VERDICTS ON CHARGES OF RAPE OF CHILD, UNNATURAL AND LASCIVIOUS ACTS WITH A CHILD, DISSEMINATION OF OBSCENE MATTER TO A MINOR, AND CHILD ENTICEMENT.

Defendant, an 81 year-old man from Hanover, was indicted by a Plymouth County Grand Jury on the following criminal offenses: (1) Rape of Child – Use of Force (G.L. c. 265, §22A), (2) Dissemination of Harmful Matter to a Minor (G.L. c. 272, §28), (3) Unnatural and Lascivious Acts with a Child under 16 (G.L. c. 272, §35A), (4) Enticement of a Child under 16 (G.L. c. 265, §26C), and (5) Enticement of a Child under 16.

The Defendant was facing a life sentence or the possibility of a very severe and long sentence. The crime of Rape of Child carries a sentence of life in state prison. The crimes of Dissemination of Harmful Matter to a Minor, Unnatural and Lascivious Acts with a Child under 16, and Enticement of a Child under 16, all carry a sentence of 5 years in state prison.

Defendant resided by himself in a home in Hanover. In May of 2016, Defendant asked his daughter and step-daughter to move into his house because he needed help around the house and help with other things. The daughters discovered stacks of handwritten notes in his house of pornographic websites, including many websites for child pornography. They searched the Defendant’s electronic devices (his iPhone, iPad, and Laptop) and discovered that his devices contained a lot of pornographic material. The daughters also noticed that a young, teenaged boy would come over to the house and do chores for the Defendant. They noticed that the Defendant would frequently provide the young teenage boy with car rides. Based on their discovery of the child pornography websites, the daughters were very concerned that the Defendant was engaging in sexual behavior with the boy. The daughters confronted the Defendant who admitted to them that he had sex with the boy on 4-5 occasions and would pay the boy for sexual favors. Defendant also stated that he and the boy almost engaged in Bestiality with a dog but the dog was too jumpy, so they couldn’t do it. The daughters decided that they needed to get the Defendant’s confession on tape, so they secretly recorded a conversation with Defendant. In this recorded conversation, the daughters spoke to the Defendant on the back porch of his home. The daughter used her cell phone, which she discretely held in her hand, to record the conversation. In the recorded conversation, the Defendant admitted to having sex with the boy on 4-5 occasions and he admitted that he would pay the boy for sexual favors. After obtaining his confession, the daughters took the Defendant’s electronic devices (his iPhone, iPad, and Laptop) from his home and brought them to the police department. At the police department, the daughters and officers searched the electronic devices. Later on, police obtained search warrants for the Defendant’s devices. A search of the Defendant’s devices revealed that word searches for “porn” returned over 7,000 hits, “erotica” returned over 8,000 hits, and “bestiality” returned over 500 hits. Police then contacted the teenage boy and had him come into the police station for an interview. Several weeks later, the boy was interviewed by the District Attorney’s Office. In his interview, the boy stated that the Defendant paid him $300 for the Defendant to perform oral sex on the boy. The boy stated that the Defendant performed oral sex on him and paid him for it. The boy stated that the incident of oral sex occurred in December of 2014 when the boy was 15 years old. The boy stated that the Defendant showed him Bestiality and he had asked the boy to provide him with child pornography. The boy stated that the Defendant would pay him money in exchange for the boy providing the Defendant with pornographic websites that were to the Defendant’s liking. In his interview, the boy mentioned that he (the boy) would bring his female friend over to the Defendant’s home and the Defendant would give them car rides. The boy was three months older than the female. The police and District Attorney’s Office interviewed the female. The female stated that she would go over the Defendant’s home during her freshman year of high school when she was around 14 years or older. The female stated that the Defendant asked her to provide him with naked pictures of herself and her friends. Defendant specifically asked her for butt, boob, and pussy pictures. The female didn’t actually provide the Defendant with naked pictures of herself or her friends. Instead, she would find naked pictures of women online. The female would tell the Defendant that the naked pictures were of herself when they were actually women online. The female stated that the Defendant would ask her and the boy to tell him sex stories of their sexual experiences. The female would make up sex stories to tell the Defendant. The female stated that the Defendant would buy them alcohol and cigarettes.

Result: Defendant was represented by Attorneys Patrick J. Noonan and Brendan J. Noonan. The Defendant was charged with three crimes (Rape of Child – Use of Force, Unnatural and Lascivious Acts with a Child under 16, and Enticement of Child under 16) – based on the same incident of oral sex with the boy. A necessary element for these offenses against the boy requires proof that the boy was under the age of 16. After an excellent cross-examination of the boy, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan was able to establish that the incident of oral sex occurred toward the end of the boy’s relationship with the Defendant, when the boy was over the age of 16. Through his cross-examination of the female victim, Attorney Noonan was able to solidify that the incident of oral sex occurred when the boy was over the age of 16. During his closing argument, Attorney Noonan showed the jurors a Chart, which outlined the timeline of events, and proved that the incident of oral sex occurred when the boy was over the age of 16. However, the jury could still find the Defendant guilty of Rape of Child – Use of Force if they found that the oral sex was done by force or without the boy’s consent. Through a very effective cross-examination of the boy, Attorney Noonan established that the oral sex was consensual. The jury found the Defendant Not Guilty of Rape of Child – Use of Force, Unnatural and Lascivious Acts with a Child under 16, and Enticement of Child under 16 because our defense team was able to prove that the oral sex was consensual and the boy was over the age of 16. Defendant was still charged with Dissemination of Harmful Matter to a Minor (the boy) and a minor is defined as a person under the age of 18. The evidence at trial showed that the boy, at all times during his relationship with the Defendant, was under the age of 18. The charge of Dissemination of Harmful Matter to the boy was based on the Commonwealth’s allegations that the Defendant showed the boy Bestiality and Child Pornography. There was no evidence at trial that the Defendant showed the boy Child Pornography. However, the boy did testify that the Defendant would ask the boy to provide him with the names of Bestiality websites. The boy would look up Bestiality websites, write down the domain names, and provide the Defendant with those domain names. Attorney Noonan asked the judge to find the Defendant not guilty on the Dissemination charge because the evidence presented by the Commonwealth was legally insufficient. Attorney Noonan argued that the Defendant did not show or disseminate Bestiality to the boy because the Defendant merely asked the boy if the boy could provide him with the names of Bestiality websites. There was no evidence of dissemination. The Judge agreed and found the Defendant not guilty of the Dissemination charge. The jury found the Defendant guilty on only one charge, which was Enticement of a Child; the child being the female victim. The Noonan’s moved for the Judge to find the Defendant not guilty of this Child Enticement offense because the Commonwealth failed to present sufficient evidence to satisfy its burden of proof. The Judge denied the request. While the jury was deliberating, the jury submitted four questions to the judge regarding the Child Enticement charge involving the female victim. The jury’s four questions were all factual questions. There were no answers for the jury’s factual questions because the Commonwealth did not present any evidence that would have answered them. In our opinion, the jury’s four factual questions suggested that the jury had reasonable doubt. Nevertheless, our law firm is appealing the Defendant’s one and only conviction for Child Enticement. This was an enormous victory because our client was facing a life sentence. Due to our client’s advanced age, any jail time would be a life sentence.

Click here to read Enterprise Newspaper Article: “Hanover man, 81, acquitted of most charges in child enticement case.”

AFTER A TWO-DAY JURY TRIAL, ATTORNEYS PATRICK J. NOONAN AND GERALD J. NOONAN WIN NOT GUILTY VERDICT IN OUI-LIQUOR CASE AGAINST A WALTHAM MAN WHO ALMOST DROVE HIS VEHICLE INTO SOMEBODY’S HOUSE.

Defendant, a self-employed Realtor from Waltham, caused a major car accident in Watertown. Defendant lost control of his vehicle, drove through two sign posts, crashed through a fence and almost drove into the front of somebody’s house. At trial, the Commonwealth introduced the following evidence. Upon arrival to the car accident in Watertown, a Watertown Police Officer testified to the severity of the crash, which caused significant damage to the Defendant’s vehicle rendering it inoperable and a total loss. The Defendant was immediately uncooperative with police. They asked him to remain in his vehicle but he refused and exited the vehicle. He was described as argumentative. The officer alleged that the Defendant was unable to recall where he was coming from. The Defendant admitted to consuming two or possibly three beers. He had an odor of alcohol on his breath. His speech was slurred. The officer decided to conduct field sobriety tests (FSTs). When walking to the location of the FSTs, Defendant was “extremely unsteady on his feet.” Defendant almost fell to the ground but the officers caught him. Defendant dropped his wallet on the ground. He mumbled to himself and spoke with slurred speech. Defendant was instructed to perform the Nine Step Walk and Turn test. However, the Defendant continually interrupted the officer and attempted to start the test, on two occasions, before the officer had an opportunity to finish her instructions. On the Nine Step Walk and Turn test, the officer noted that the Defendant stumbled, did not walk heel to tow, did not count the steps out loud, used his arms for balance, and took the incorrect number of steps. On the One-Leg Stand test, the officer noted that on the Defendant’s first attempt he could only raise his leg for one-second and his body was tipping. On his second attempt, Defendant swayed and almost fell to the ground before the officers caught him. Defendant could not recite the Alphabet. After his arrest, Defendant was booked at the Watertown Police Station. The booking officer testified that he could detect an odor of alcohol coming from the Defendant during the booking process. The arresting officer stated that the Defendant was unsteady during booking.

Result: At trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan called, as a witness, a police officer from the neighboring town of Belmont to testify. Just minutes prior to the car accident in Watertown (which resulted in the Defendant’s arrest for OUI), Defendant was involved in a minor car accident in the town of Belmont where he rear-ended another vehicle. A Belmont Police Officer investigated the minor car accident in Belmont and interviewed the Defendant. At the conclusion of her investigation, the Belmont Officer gave the Defendant a warning for following too closely and she allowed the Defendant to leave the scene and drive away in his vehicle. Attorney Noonan questioned the Belmont Officer who testified that she did not observe any signs of intoxication by the Defendant and she found that the Defendant was sober. Attorney Noonan established that the accident in Belmont (where the Belmont Officer found him to be sober) occurred just minutes prior to the accident in Watertown. Therefore, just minutes prior to his arrest for OUI-Liquor in Watertown, Attorney Noonan presented evidence that another officer from Belmont found the Defendant to be sober. At the scene of the Watertown car accident, Defendant was evaluated by EMTS prior to the officer administering his FSTs. Defendant refused medical treatment. Attorney Noonan introduced the ambulance report, which showed that the EMTs did not observe any signs that the Defendant was intoxicated. Attorney Noonan also introduced medical records of the Defendant showing that he had chronic medical issues, which could have affected his ability to perform the FSTs. Finally, Attorney Noonan introduced portions of the Defendant’s booking video, which showed evidence of the Defendant’s sobriety. After a two-day jury trial, Defendant was found Not Guilty.

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CHARGE SEALED FROM ATTORNEY’S RECORD

A self-employed Attorney from Belmont, Massachusetts was charged with Assault and Battery. His girlfriend, the alleged victim, went to the police station and spoke with an officer. Based on the conversation with the officer, the officer decided to charge the Defendant with Assault and Battery. The girlfriend was surprised that the police charged the Defendant with Assault and Battery, as it was never her intention for him to get charged with a crime. She believed that the officer misrepresented what she stated to him. The girlfriend expressed that she wanted the case dismissed. The District Attorney’s Office filed a Nolle Prosequi with the Court, which is a formal notice stating that they will not prosecute the Defendant.

Result: Defendant contacted Attorney Patrick J. Noonan because he needed his domestic violence charge sealed immediately, as he was very close to being hired for a legal position and he would be denied the job if the employer saw that he had been charged with Assault & Battery. Defendant knew he would be denied the position, even though the case had been Nolle Prossed. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan was able to get the client’s criminal sealed within six (6) days and the client was later hired for the job.

ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN GETS A NOT GUILTY IN OUI-LIQUOR CASE AGAINST A DEFENDANT WHO CAUSED A SERIOUS CAR ACCIDENT AND HAD A BLOOD ALCOHOL LEVEL OF .214%.

Defendant, a Brockton man, was traveling on Route 24 South in Randolph when he caused a serious motor vehicle accident. It was alleged that the Defendant was traveling at a high rate of speed and rear-ended another vehicle causing both vehicles to spin out of control and end up off the highway. The Defendant’s vehicle rolled over multiple times and ended up in the woods. Defendant caused significant damage to the rear of the other vehicle. There were three occupants in the other vehicle. Upon arrival, Defendant did not follow the instructions of the officers. Officers observed that the Defendant had an odor of alcohol on his breath; he spoke with slurred speech, his eyes were glassy and bloodshot, and he was unsteady on his feet. Defendant admitted to consuming two beers. Defendant was taken to the hospital by ambulance. The investigating officer went to the hospital where he spoke with the Defendant. The officer made the same observations of the Defendant’s sobriety that he made at the scene. The officer formed the opinion that the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol. At the hospital, Defendant’s blood was drawn and tested for alcohol. The blood test revealed that the Defendant had a blood alcohol level of .214%, which is well over the legal limit of 0.08%.

Result: Defendant hired Attorney Patrick J. Noonan who fast-tracked the case to trial before the District Attorney’s Office had an opportunity to subpoena his client’s hospital records and find out that he had a blood alcohol level of .214%. At trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan introduced evidence that the Defendant sustained a head injury and bodily injuries in the crash. In his cross-examination of the police officer, Attorney Noonan got the officer to admit that his observations of the Defendant’s alleged intoxication could have been symptoms from the crash and his injuries as opposed to signs of alcohol consumption. For example, Defendant’s unsteadiness on his feet, slurred speech, and his inability to follow the instructions of police could have been symptoms from his head and bodily injuries, and not symptoms of intoxication. At the conclusion of the Commonwealth’s case, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan argued that the Commonwealth failed to meet its burden of proving that the Defendant was intoxicated. The Judge agreed and found the Defendant Not Guilty.

DESPITE DEFENDANT’S CONFESSION TO STEALING $8,000 FROM HIS EMPLOYER, ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN GETS LARCENY CASE DISMISSED AT TRIAL.

Defendant, a Brockton man, worked for a business in Brockton. An investigator for the company found that the Defendant was stealing from the business in excess of $8,000. The investigator gathered all records and documents showing the Defendant’s thefts from the business. The investigator provided the police with all the documents detailing the employee theft. At the police station, Defendant admitted that he stole the money. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan was successful in getting the Defendant’s confession suppressed after proving that the police officer did not read the Defendant his Miranda rights. The District Attorney’s Office still had enough evidence to prosecute the Defendant for the crime of Larceny over $250 (G.L. c. 265, §30).

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan prepared the case for trial. Attorney Noonan was prepared to move the Court to exclude from evidence the documents from the investigator, which purportedly showed the Defendant’s thefts from the business on the grounds that the documents were not admissible as business records. Attorney Noonan was prepared to present evidence that the Commonwealth would be unable to prove all the essential elements of a Larceny beyond a reasonable doubt. On the first trial date, the investigator appeared in court and was ready to testify but the trial was continued due to court congestion. On the second trial date, the Commonwealth got the trial continued, over the objection of the defense, because a witness was on vacation. On the third trial date, the trial got continued due to court congestion. On the fourth trial date, the investigator did not appear because he had a job training that day. Attorney Noonan moved to dismiss the case for lack of prosecution, as the Commonwealth was not ready for trial.

EASTON MAN WAS CAPTURED ON FILM COMMITTING THE CRIME OF VIOLATION OF AN ABUSE PREVENTION ORDER BUT ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN CONVINCES JURY TO FIND HIS CLIENT NOT GUILTY.

Defendant is a 69 year-old hairstylist from Easton who has owned his own business for 35 years. The victim worked for the Defendant and they developed a romantic relationship and dated for 5 years. The victim claimed that she ended the relationship with the Defendant due to his obsessive behavior and because he was stalking her. The victim obtained an Abuse Prevention Order, known as a 209A Order, which the Court issued against the Defendant. The 209A Order ordered the Defendant not to contact the victim, not to abuse the victim, and to stay at least 100 yards away from the victim. Defendant was charged with Violation of Abuse Prevention Order (G.L. c. 209A) based on allegations that he followed the victim in violation of the Order, which ordered him to stay at least 100 yards away. On the day in question, the victim was driving her vehicle with her husband in the front passenger seat. They (victim and her husband) claimed to have seen the Defendant’s vehicle in Easton while they were on the way to breakfast. After breakfast, they went to Dunkin Donuts on Route 44 in Raynham where they claimed to have seen the Defendant’s vehicle drive by them. To get away from the Defendant, they drove into the Shaw’s parking lot on Route 44 and waited for the Defendant to leave. They pulled out of the Shaw’s parking lot and proceeded to drive on Route 44 when they observed the Defendant’s vehicle driving directly behind them and following them. The husband took out his cell phone and filmed the Defendant following directly behind them. The prosecution introduced the video at trial, which clearly showed the Defendant’s vehicle following directly behind the victim and at times following them very closely. The victim claimed that the Defendant was following them for 20-30 minutes. They went directly to the Middleboro Police Station to report the incident. At trial, the Commonwealth argued that the Defendant knowingly followed the victim through three different towns in violation of the restraining order.

Result: At trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan proved that his client did not know that he was following the victim and that the encounter was accidental. Attorney Noonan presented evidence that his client left his business in Easton to go to Route 44 to do some errands for work. When the victim first saw the Defendant in Easton, she saw his vehicle three cars ahead of her. In Easton, Defendant was not following her and the victim saw him get onto Route 24 South. Attorney Noonan argued that the Defendant was not following her in Easton, as the victim saw him three cars ahead of her. After the Defendant got onto Route 24 South, the victim went to West Bridgewater to eat breakfast. Attorney Noonan argued that the Defendant could not have known that the victim would be going to Route 44 because he had already gotten on the highway and was already on Route 44 doing errands while the victim was eating breakfast in West Bridgewater. When the victim was at Dunkin Donuts on Route 44, she claimed to have seen the Defendant but Attorney Noonan presented evidence showing that his client was on his way to a store called Salon Centric in the vicinity of Dunkin Donuts. Attorney Noonan introduced a receipt verifying that his client went to Salon Centric near the Dunkin Donuts. When the victim pulled out of Shaw’s she claimed to have seen the Defendant following her on Route 44 but Attorney Noonan presented evidence that his client was on this section of Route 44 because he had just finished having lunch at KFC and was on his way to Middleboro to watch the herring run. Attorney Noonan introduced a receipt from KFC verifying that his client had just eaten lunch, which explained why he was traveling on this section of Route 44. Attorney Noonan presented evidence that it was his client’s routine and regular practice to go to Route 44 to buy products at Salon Centric and get a bite to eat at KFC. Attorney Noonan introduced receipts showing that his client went to Salon Centric and the KFC on Route 44 at least once of week. Attorney Noonan presented witnesses who testified to the Defendant’s routine practice of going to Route 44. Attorney Noonan introduced a map of Route 44 highlighting the locations of Dunkin Donuts, Shaw’s, Salon Centric, and KFC showing the Defendant’s locations and routes of travel. The map explained why the victim saw the Defendant’s vehicle at these locations. After 10 minutes of deliberation, the jury found the Defendant Not Guilty.

WHITMAN MAN IS CHARGED WITH OUI-LIQUOR (2ND OFFENSE) AFTER HE CRASHES INTO UTILITY POLE, TELLS POLICE OFFICER, “I KNOW I’M GOING TO JAIL FOR THIS,” AND HAS A BLOOD ALCOHOL LEVEL OF 0.249%. CLIENT AVOIDS A CONVICTION, JAIL TIME, AND A 3-YEAR LOSS OF LICENSE AFTER ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN CONVINCES THE JUDGE TO TREAT THIS CASE AS A 1ST OFFENSE OUI.

Defendant, a 38 year-old Whitman man, was driving erratically and struck a utility pole with such force as to snap the pole at its base. A concerned citizen called 911. Upon arrival, the officer observed that the Defendant was highly intoxicated. The officer detected a strong odor of alcohol. Defendant’s eyes were red and glassy. When asked for his license, Defendant attempted to open his car door and fell to the ground. The officer could not administer any field sobriety tests due to the fact that the Defendant could not stand and was falling over. Defendant told the officer, “I know I’m going to jail for this.” Defendant was transported to the hospital where they tested his blood for alcohol. Defendant’s blood alcohol level was 0.249%, which is three times over the legal limit. Defendant was charged with a second offense OUI (as he was previously convicted of OUI) and Negligent Operation of a Motor Vehicle. The District Attorney’s Office had an expert ready to testify at trial that the Defendant’s blood alcohol content was 0.249%.

Result: Although charged with a second-offense OUI, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan convinced the Judge to sentence his client to a first-offense OUI pursuant to Commonwealth v. Cahill, 442 Mass. 127 (2004). Defendant received a Continuance without a Finding (CWOF) with one-year of probation instead of a Guilty. If the Defendant successfully completes probation, the case will be dismissed. With this first offense disposition, Defendant’s driver’s license was suspended for only 45 days. If he was sentenced to a second offense OUI, Defendant would have lost his driver’s license for 3 years. With a Cahill disposition, the Registry of Motor Vehicles must honor the decision of the court to treat a second offense OUI as a 1st offense if it occurs more than 10 years from the date of the 1st drunk driving conviction. It should be noted that the District Attorney’s Office objected to Attorney Noonan’s request for the judge to treat this case as a 1st offense OUI and the Commonwealth requested a Guilty finding with a suspended jail sentence.

Click Here to Read Enterprise Newspaper Article:  “What Whitman main charged with drunken driving told police.”

ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN CONVINCES NEWSPAPER TO CORRECT INACCURATE INFORMATION PUBLISHED ABOUT A CLIENT’S ARREST.

Client, a college student, was arrested and charged with drug possession, disorderly conduct, and other charges. A Newspaper published an online article about the client’s arrest. However, some of the information in the article was not accurate. Client was concerned about members of the public reading the inaccurate information in the article about his arrest. Client contacted Attorney Patrick J. Noonan about getting the newspaper to change the article to include the correct information.

Result: After several negotiations, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan convinced the newspaper to correct the inaccurate information that had been published online about the client’s arrest. The newspaper updated the article and included the correct information at the very top of the article, so readers could see the correct information prior to reading the article.