Case Results – 2011

Free Initial Consultation to Discuss Your Case • Call (508) 584-6955

Criminal Defense Attorneys Justice for AllCriminal Defense Representation

The Noonan Defense Firm rigorously defends clients charged with any criminal charge so no matter where you are located in Southeast Massachusetts, expert legal help is just a phone call away. To schedule a free, no-obligation case review and consultation with an experienced criminal defense trial lawyer call our law offices at (508) 584-6955.

When you make the call, rest assured you have taken your first step to find out how best to confront the charges you are facing. You can also use our Free Case Evaluation Form to submit information about your case in confidence, or to request that we contact you.

December 5, 2011
Commonwealth v. C.F.
Quincy District Court


Client, 20-year-old office worker, was charged with assault and battery with a dangerous weapon and malicious destruction of property stemming from an incident in which she threatened the victim with an aluminum baseball bat and damaged the victim’s 2010 Mercedes with said aluminum baseball bat. Defendant chased the victim into his vehicle with the aluminum baseball bat. Once the victim got inside his vehicle, Defendant proceeded to smash his vehicle repeatedly with the baseball bat until the victim sped away. The 2010 Mercedes sustained property damage in excess of $9,000.00. At the Clerk’s Hearing, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan successfully argued that the Defendant was acting in self-defense. Specifically, Attorney Noonan presented evidence that the alleged victim was stalking and constantly harassing the Defendant through a chain of disturbing text messages and e-mails. The Clerk-Magistrate found that the alleged victim acted justifiably, as she was placed in imminent fear of bodily harm.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan gets felony charges dismissed against 20 year-old Defendant.

November 25, 2011
Commonwealth v. J.H.
Brockton District Court


Client, 24-year-old engineer with no criminal record, was charged with operating under the influence and negligent operation stemming from a rollover accident on Route 24 South in which the Defendant drove off the highway and crashed into unoccupied construction trucks and equipment, causing serious property damage. A State Trooper arrived on the scene and observed that the Defendant smelled like alcohol, had slurred speech, had glassy / bloodshot eyes, and was unsteady on his feet. At a Clerk’s Hearing, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan successfully dismissed the case, arguing that there was insufficient evidence that the Defendant was impaired by alcohol.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan gets OUI-Liquor charge dismissed against engineer with no criminal record.

September 14, 2011
Commonwealth v. D.M.
Brockton District Court


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

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

August 22, 2011
Commonwealth v. R.M.
Brockton Superior Court


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

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

July 26, 2011
Commonwealth v. R.K.
Dedham District Court


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

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

July 13, 2011
Commonwealth v. W.L.
Brockton District Court


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

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

June 22, 2011
Commonwealth v. S.F.
Taunton District Court


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

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

April 7, 2011
Commonwealth v. J.D.
Brockton District Court


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

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

March 11, 2011
Commonwealth v. D.C.
Brockton Superior Court


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

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

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

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

This Case In the News