OPEN & GROSS LEWNDESS: IDENTIFICATION SUPPRESSED

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

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

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

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

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

ASSAULT & BATTERY on PREGNANT WOMAN: PRETRIAL PROBATION

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

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

NEGLIGENT OPERATION: DISMISSED at CLERK’S HEARING

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

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

Docket No.: 1515 CR 4971

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

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

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

Docket No.: 1515 CR 4306

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

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

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

LARCENY FROM PERSON: DISMISSED
CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT LARCENY: DISMISSED

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

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

UNLAWFUL POSS. OF AMMUNITION: DISMISSED
NEGLIGENT OPERATION: DISMISSED

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

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

UTTERING FALSE PRESCRIPTION: EXPUNGED

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FIREARM SUSPENSION: LICENSE TO CARRY REINSTATED

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

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

OUI-LIQUOR (subsequent offense): NOT GUILTY

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

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

MALICIOUS DESTRUCTION: DISMISSED
RESISTING ARREST: DISMISSED

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

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

NEGLIGENT OPERATION: DISMISSED

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

Result: Negligent Operation charge dismissed outright after extensive negotiations.

ASSAULT & BATTERY: DISMISSED
ASSAULT & BATTERY: DISMISSED

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

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

OPEN & GROSS LEWDNESS: DISMISSED

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

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

OUI-LIQUOR (second offense): NOT GUILTY

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

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

LARCENY: DISMISSED PRIOR TO ARRAIGNMENT

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

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

CARRYING FIREARM while INTOX.: DISMISSED

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

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

ASSAULT and BATTERY: DISMISSED

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

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

ASSAULT & BATTERY: DISMISSED at CLERK’S HEARING

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

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

THREATS TO COMMIT CRIME: DISMISSED

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

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

ASSAULT and BATTERY: DISMISSED

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

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

OUI-LIQUOR (second offense) NOT GUILTY

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ASSAULT & BATTERY w/ DANGEROUS WEAPON: NOT GUILTY

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

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

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

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

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

LARCENY BY SINGLE SCHEME: PRETRIAL PROBATION

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

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

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

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

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

OUI-LIQUOR (second offense): NOT GUILTY

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

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

SHOPLIFTING: NO CHARGES FILED

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

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

ASSAULT w/ INTENT TO MURDER: NOT GUILTY

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RECEIVING STOLEN PROPERTY: DISMISSED
LARCENY FALSE PRETENSE: DISMISSED

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

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

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

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

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

BREAKING & ENTERING FOR FELONY: DISMISSED

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

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