ATTORNEY GERALD J. NOONAN GETS POSSESSION OF HEROIN / FENTANYL CHARGE AGAINST QUINCY MAN WITH NO CRIMINAL RECORD DISMISSED ON THIRD COURT DATE

Defendant is a 31 year-old Quincy resident with no criminal record. He is a Foreman at a company that provides engineering and construction services. Abington Police pulled over the Defendant’s vehicle for speeding and running a red light. Upon approaching the vehicle, the officer observed the defendant-operator bending down and shielding his hands from view. When questioning him, Defendant turned his body away from the officer, shielded both hands from view, and reached down into his waist. The officer ordered him to exit the vehicle whereupon the Defendant placed his right hand in his right pocket. Throughout his entire with the Defendant, he continued to place his hands in his pockets causing the officer to remove the Defendant’s hand from his pocket and place him in handcuffs. The officer conducted a pat-frisk and found two plastic bags, containing white and brown powder, in the Defendant’s pocket. The defendant admitted that the substance in the bags was “Fentanyl.” A Drug Certificate of Analysis confirmed that the substances tested positive for Heroin and Fentanyl. As a result, Defendant was charged with Possession with Class A-Heroin (G.L. c. 94C, §31).

Result: At the outset of the case, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan campaigned to dismiss the case; first by filing a motion to dismiss and later by trying to persuade the District Attorney’s Office to dismiss the case. On his third court appearance, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan convinced the prosecutor to dismiss the case upon the payment of $250 in court costs.

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.”

AT CLERK-MAGISTRATE HEARING, CHARGE OF THREATS TO COMMIT CRIME IS DISMISSED, AS ATTORNEY GERALD J. NOONAN ESTABLISHES THAT THE ALLEGED VICTIM COULD NOT IDENTIFY THE DEFENDANT AS THE PERSON WHO MADE THE THREATS

On May 12, 2019, Brockton Police received six (6) complaints about loud music and disturbances coming from the Defendant’s residence. At approximately 12:00 a.m., Brockton Police were called to the Defendant’s residence for a disturbance for loud music. Upon arrival, police spoke to the defendant and police warned him that, if they were to receive any more complaints, they would shut the party down. Thereafter, police received five more calls. In one call, a neighbor reported that there were 25 people in the middle of the street having a party. The neighbor went out to the middle of the street and asked the people to take the party back into the house whereupon one of the individual’s threatened to harm the neighbor. As a result, Defendant was charged with Keeping a Noisy and Disorderly Home (G.L. c. 272, §53) and Threats to Commit a Crime (G.L. c. 275, §2).

Result: At the Clerk-Magistrate Hearing, five (5) witnesses appeared on behalf of the police department. These five witnesses lived on the same street as the Defendant and were so upset because there had been a history of loud disturbances coming from the Defendant’s home. Attorney Gerald J. Noonan cross-examined the alleged victim (the neighbor who was allegedly threatened by the Defendant.) Through cross-examination, Attorney Noonan established that the victim was unable to identify the Defendant as the man who threatened him. Moreover, Attorney Noonan argued that there was insufficient evidence to charge the Defendant with making threats, as there was no evidence identifying his client as the person making the threats. As a result, there was insufficient probable cause to charge the client with Threats. The remaining charge of Keeping a Noisy and Disorderly was held open for six months. If there are no further problems, the remaining charge will be dismissed.

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.

DEFENDANT CHARGED WITH DOMESTIC ASSAULT & BATTERY AFTER WIFE CALLS 911 AND TELLS POLICE THAT HER HUSBAND HIT HER, BROKE HER ARM, AND POLICE TOOK PHOTOS OF SWELLING AND BRUISING TO HER ARM, BUT ATTORNEY GERALD J. NOONAN GETS CASE DISMISSED AT TRIAL

Easton Police received a 911 call from the Defendant’s wife who reported that her husband just hit her and she wanted him out of the house as soon as possible. She told the 911 operator that her arm was broken and swollen. Upon arrival, police observed that the wife’s arm was swollen. Color photographs taken by police show swelling and bruising to the wife’s arm. At the scene, the wife told police that the Defendant struck her in the face and grabbed her by the arm. Police arrested the Defendant for Assault and Battery on a Family / Household Member (G.L. c. 265, §13M). After his arrest, the wife obtained a restraining order against the Defendant.

Result: At trial, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan was ready to exclude the 911 tape from coming into evidence on the grounds that the audio recording of the wife’s call did not meet the rules of evidence. Prior to trial, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan placed the prosecutor on notice that he was going into introduce evidence of prior instances of violence initiated by the wife where the wife had punched the Defendant on six prior occasions. Attorney Noonan sought to introduce evidence that his client acted in self-defense because his wife attacked him during this incident. Attorney Noonan sought to introduce an incriminating statement made by the wife to police where she admitted to poking the Defendant, evidence showing that she initiated a physical confrontation. Finally, Attorney sought to introduce conflicting and inconsistent statements made by the wife where she could not recall who initiated the first strike, she could not recall how she received the injury to her arm, and she claimed that the Defendant struck her in the face despite the fact that police found no marks to her face that would corroborate that allegation. At trial, the wife invoked her marital privilege not to testify against her husband. The Commonwealth elected not to proceed with the trial without the wife’s testimony.

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.

LARCENY CHARGE FOR SHOPLIFTING FROM THE SAME STORE ON AT LEAST 6 OCCASIONS WILL BE DISMISSED IN ONE-YEAR, SO LONG AS THE DEFENDANT STAYS OUT OF TROUBLE, RESULTING IN NO CONVICTION OR ADMISSION TO ANY WRONGDOING

Burlington Police were dispatched to the Chico’s department store in the Burlington Mall for a past theft. The Manager of the store reported that a former employee was shoplifting from the store when she was working there. The manager stated that the former employee and her sister (the defendant) had shoplifted from the store on at least 6 occasions. The manager provided police with receipts totaling $683 of stolen merchandise. The manager believes that they shoplifted much more but he only had evidence of the 6 thefts. Police obtained store surveillance video footage showing the defendant and her sister taking items from the store without paying for them.

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan persuades the District Attorney’s Office and the Department Store to accept his proposal of Pretrial Probation for a period of one year with conditions to pay restitution and stay away from the store. The client has already paid the restitution. So long as the client stays out of trouble and stays away from the store, the case will be dismissed. Her criminal record will reflect that the charge was dismissed, there was no conviction, and she did not admit to any wrongdoing.

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.”

ATTORNEY GERALD J. NOONAN GETS DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CHARGE AGAINST DEFENDANT FOR ASSAULTING HIS 17 YEAR-OLD SON DISMISSED AND CHARGE OF ASSAULT & BATTERY ON A POLICE OFFICER TO BE DISMISSED IN ONE-YEAR RESULTING IN NO CONVICTION OR ADMISSION TO ANY WRONGDOING BY THE DEFENDANT

Sandwich Police were called to the Defendant’s residence for a report of a domestic dispute between two parents and their four children. Two of the children called 911 to report that their parents were out of control. Upon arrival, policed heard yelling and screaming coming from inside the home. Defendant’s wife was yelling and screaming at police that they were not allowed inside their residence and she was described as being highly volatile. Police instructed the Defendant to sit down in a chair. However, Defendant began to yell at his daughter and proceeded to stand up when a police officer shined his flashlight into the Defendant’s eyes to distract him. In response, the Defendant swung his right arm and knocked the flashlight out of the officer’s hands, causing the flashlight to spin in the air. Officers forced the Defendant back into his chair and handcuffed him. Police spoke to the Defendant’s 17 year-old son who reported that the Defendant got right into his face, yelled at him, “Do you want me to beat you?” and pushed his son into the couch. The other son corroborated that the Defendant stated, “Do you want me to beat you?” Defendant was charged with Assault and Battery on a Police Officer (G.L. c. 265, §13D) and Assault and Battery on a Family / Household Member (G.L. c. 265, §13M).

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan had the 17 year-old son (the victim of the assault and battery) interviewed. The son stated that he was enlisting in the military and he had no desire to testify against his father. Attorney Noonan informed the Commonwealth that the son had no desire to testify against his client and would most likely be unavailable at trial due to his military service. Attorney Noonan placed the Commonwealth on notice that his client acted in self-defense in knocking the flashlight out of the officer’s hands to defend himself against the strong and intense beam of light that was shined directly into his eyes, which could cause temporary blindness or other injury. Attorney Noonan was prepared to file a motion for discovery to obtain the make and model of the police officer’s flashlight to establish the strength of the beam of light. For example, one particular police flashlight has an LED beam so strong that it can blast the distance of four football fields. Another particular police flashlight has a super bright beam of 425 lumens reaching 352 yards, and another model has 700 lumens. Attorney Noonan persuades the District Attorney to dismiss the domestic violence charge. For the Assault and Battery on a Police Officer charge, the prosecutor offered the Defendant Pretrial Probation for one-year with the condition to undergo anger management counseling. If the Defendant complies with probation, the charge will be dismissed. This is a good disposition because the Defendant is not required to admit that he committed the offense or admit to any wrongdoing and his record will reflect that the charge was dismissed with no conviction or adverse finding.

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.

AFTER ATTORNEY GERALD J. NOONAN PRESENTS HIS CASE, CLERK-MAGISTRATE DECLINES TO ISSUE CRIMINAL COMPLAINT AGAINST DEFENDANT FOR VIOLATING A PERMANENT RESTRAINING ORDER FROM HIS EX-GIRLFRIEND

The alleged victim had a permanent Abuse Prevention Restraining Order (c. 209A) against the Defendant, her ex-boyfriend. She reported that she saw the Defendant standing directly across the street from her apartment. She stated that he was walking around and acting suspicious. She was 100% that it was the Defendant and described his clothing. When she observed the Defendant, she immediately called the police but nobody came to her house, so she went to the police soon thereafter. One of the terms of the restraining order orders the Defendant to stay at least 100 yards from the victim.

Result: At the Clerk-Magistrate Hearing, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan cross-examined the alleged victim and, although she claims to have called the police to report the defendant’s alleged violation of the restraining, there was no record of her call. Attorney elicited from the police officer that any report for a violation of a restraining order is given priority and an officer would have been dispatched. She claimed to have observed the Defendant from the first floor window to the apartment building but Attorney Noonan introduced a photo showing that there is no first floor window for the apartment. On cross-examination, she could not recall what type of clothing the Defendant was supposedly wearing. Attorney Noonan argued that it was impossible (or impractical) for the alleged victim to have seen and positively identified the Defendant from her conflicting location in the apartment especially since it was dark outside. The alleged victim had a motive because she made the allegation to the police after seeing some posts on the Defendant’s Facebook page, which upset her. She claimed that the Defendant’s Facebook posts were a violation of the restraining order but the police did not agree with her. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Clerk-Magistrate did not issue the criminal complaint.

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 GERALD J. NOONAN GETS DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CHARGE AGAINST BRIDGEWATER MAN DISMISSED FOR ALLEGEDLY HITTING THE VICTIM IN THE FACE CAUSING A FRESH LACERATION, PUSHING THE VICTIM INTO A MIRROR THAT SHATTERED, AND THROWING THE VICTIM TO THE FLOOR

Bridgewater Police were dispatched to a residence for a domestic disturbance. Upon arrival, police spoke with the alleged victim who told police that, earlier in the night, the Defendant hit him in the face with an open hand. Later in the evening, when they returned to their apartment, the Defendant shoved the alleged victim against a large mirror causing the glass to shatter. Police took photos of the shattered glass. Police observed a fresh laceration to the victim’s right cheek. There was a witness who was in the apartment when the incident occurred. The witness stated that he went outside to smoke a cigarette and heard argument in the apartment. When he returned, the victim told the witness that the Defendant had thrown him to the ground.

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan had his investigator interview the alleged victim who provided the defense with a typed statement indicating that he pushed the Defendant numerous times, he kept the fight going, and he said some harsh words to the Defendant. He stated that he did not sustain any injuries and he wanted the case dismissed. As for the witness, it did not appear as though he witnessed the actual altercation but arrived after the fact. At trial, the Commonwealth 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.

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CHARGE AGAINST BROCKTON WOMAN FOR BITING HER HUSBAND DISMISSED AT TRIAL.

Defendant, a Brockton woman, called police after having an argument with her husband and she reported that she and her husband were both verbally and physically fighting each other. When the police arrived to their apartment, the husband told police that the defendant struck him in the eye and bit him on the chest. The officer observed that the husband has fresh bite marks on his chest. Defendant claimed that the husband struck her and bit her. However, the police did not observe any marks on the Defendant, which would corroborate her claim. The police arrested and charged the Defendant with Assault and Battery on a Family / Household Member (G.L. c. 265, §13M.)

Result: On the day of trial, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan was successful in having the case dismissed. The husband appeared in court and invoked his marital privilege. Under Massachusetts law, neither a husband nor wife can be compelled to testify against the other in a criminal trial. G.L. c. 233, §20(2). The purpose of the privilege is to protect marital harmony and avoid the unseemliness of compelling one spouse to testify against the other. Trammel v. United States, 445 U.S. 40 (1980. The scope of the marital privilege is broad; it creates a privilege not just to withhold testimony that would be adverse to the spouse, but also to refrain from testifying at all. In re Grand Jury Subpoena, 447 Mass. 88 (2006) Upon the husband’s invocation of his marital privilege, the Commonwealth did not have sufficient evidence to try the case and the case the was dismissed.

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 GERALD J. NOONAN GETS CRIMINAL COMPLAINT FOR OUI-LIQUOR DISMISSED AT A CLERK-MAGISTRATE HEARING AGAINST A DEFENDANT WHO CRASHED INTO POLICE CRUISERS AND ADMITTED TO POLICE THAT HE HAD SEVERAL SHOTS OF LIQUOR AND WAS TIPSY.

Defendant was watching a Red Sox playoff game with his family at his home. He ordered some take-out food. While driving to pick up his food, Defendant lost control of his vehicle and struck two parked police cruisers at a high rate of speed. An officer was inside one of the parked cruisers and temporarily lost consciousness from the high-impact crash. Officers detected an odor of alcohol on the Defendant’s breath and he admitted to consuming several shots of liquor. He told another officer, “I’m not going to lie. I’m tipsy.” Defendant stated, several times, that he was “tipsy.” Defendant was taken to the hospital. Another officer interviewed the Defendant at the hospital. Several officers had formed the opinion that the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol. Defendant was charged with OUI-Liquor and Speeding.

Result: At the Clerk-Magistrate Hearing, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan presented evidence showing that his client consumed some alcohol but was not under the influence of alcohol. Although one officer detected a strong odor of alcohol, another officer detected only a faint odor of alcohol. Attorney Noonan stressed that an officer conducted a lengthier interview of the Defendant at the hospital and this officer did not form the opinion that the Defendant was intoxicated. This officer was in the best position to make observations of the Defendant and form an opinion on his sobriety. Specifically, the only indication of alcohol use noted by this officer was a faint odor of alcohol. The officer noted that the Defendant was steady on his feet and spoke in a normal tone of voice. Attorney Noonan argued that the observations by officers of signs of intoxication were actually symptoms from the car crash and not from alcohol use. After the hearing, the Clerk-Magistrate did not issue the criminal complaint for OUI-Liquor.

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.

ATTORNEY GERALD J. NOONAN GETS CRIMINAL CHARGES OF LARCENY FROM A BUILDING, POSSESSION OF CLASS D SUBSTANCE, AND POSSESSION OF CLASS E SUBSTANCE DROPPED AGAINST HIGHLY-DECORATED U.S. ARMY COMBAT VETERAN.

Defendant was charged with Larceny from a Building (G.L. c. 266, §20), Possession of Class D Substance (Prozac), and Possession of Class D Substance (Marijuana). See G.L. c. 94C. Back in 2005, when the Defendant was 17 years-old, Defendant was charged with these crimes stemming from allegations that he stole cash and Prozac pills from the home of a family friend in Marblehead, Massachusetts. While the charges were pending in the Lynn District Court, the client enlisted in the U.S. Army when he turned 18 years-old and left Massachusetts while his criminal case was still active. The client served 11 years in the U.S. Army. He served in combat in places, such as Afghanistan. He was honorably discharged with the rank of Staff Sergeant. He was medically retired due to permanent physical injuries he sustained in combat. He earned countless awards for his service. The client was happily married with a young son in Oklahoma. One day, the client went to the military base in Oklahoma where he was informed that he had a warrant and he was not permitted to enter the military base. The client realized that the old warrant was from his criminal case back in 2005 when he was 17 years-old. The client did not have the money to come back to Massachusetts to clear up the warrant because he was disabled and was trying to support his family. The client intended to get a job on the military base, as a firearm’s instructor, but he couldn’t get on the military base because of the warrant.

Result: The client tried, unsuccessfully, to clear up the warrant himself while living in Oklahoma. The client was told that he had to return to Massachusetts and appear in court in order to remove the warrant. Fearing that he was out of options, the client contacted Attorney Gerald J. Noonan. Attorney Noonan obtained all the records from the client’s 2005 case. Attorney Noonan made a written request to the District Attorney’s Office to remove the warrant and to dismiss the criminal charges. In his request, Attorney Noonan pointed out that his client was only 17 years-old at the time of the charges and he would have been charged as a juvenile under today’s laws. Attorney Noonan explained the circumstances of his client’s failure to appear in court because he mistakenly believed that his court case was resolved. Lastly, Attorney Noonan described the client’s military service, in detail, and provided the District Attorney’s Office with all his awards and medals. After reviewing Attorney’s Noonan request and arguments, the Commonwealth entered a Nolle Prosequi, a written statement to the court that they were dropping the case “in the interest of justice.”