Our clients come from all backgrounds and demographics and need a criminal defense attorney for various reasons.  We have helped fathers, mothers, sons, daughters, wives, husbands and minor children.

We have helped professionals whose jobs were at stake and high school students who were trying to get into college.

Our clients and their reasons for hiring us are all unique, but they do have one thing common — all our clients’ matter to us and so does their future.

Attorney Gerald J. Noonan founded The Noonan Defense Firm after serving the Commonwealth of Massachusetts for many years as an Assistant District Attorney. Throughout his prosecutorial career, Attorney Noonan argued and tried hundreds of criminal cases including homicide, attempted murder, arson, rape, armed robbery, drug crimes, driving under the influence and cases involving many other serious criminal offenses.

As a criminal defense attorney, Gerald J. Noonan has over 340 successful criminal trials. Attorney Noonan knows the legal strategies and tactics both law enforcement and district attorneys use when trying to get criminal convictions. He has criminal trial experience on both sides of a criminal case, which is invaluable when you are looking for an attorney to represent you.

Our law firm represents and defends individuals arrested and charged with felonies and misdemeanors, federal crimes, juvenile crimes, and can assist with expungement of criminal records (record sealing.)  To learn more about how we have helped others, we invite you to browse or case results below, and read our CLIENT REVIEWS.

The following are case results for some of the many clients we have helped throughout our criminal defense career.

Commonwealth v. A.H.

Brockton District Court

Plymouth Superior Court

DISTRICT COURT JUDGE FINDS DEFENDANT DANGEROUS AND ORDERS HIM HELD IN JAIL UNTIL HIS TRIAL, BUT ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN APPEALS AND CONVINCES THE SUPERIOR COURT TO REVERSE THE FINDING OF THE DISTRICT COURT. ON APPEAL, DEFENDANT IS FOUND “NOT” DANGEROUS AND HE IS RELEASED ON $1,500 BAIL AND CONDITIONS.

Defendant, a Brockton resident, was a passenger in a vehicle. The vehicle was wanted for being involved in a drive-by shooting in Boston on January 2, 2021. State Police attempted to stop the vehicle in Boston, but the operator of the vehicle fled resulting in a car chase. The car chase went all the way from Boston into Brockton. The fleeing vehicle, traveling at a high rate of speed, crashed in Brockton. The vehicle was heavily damaged entrapping the Defendant, the passenger, and the co-defendant, operator. A team of officers ordered the defendant and co-defendant out of the vehicle by gunpoint. The co-defendant refused the officers’ commands, and police used a taser to subdue him. Police searched the glove compartment and found two handguns and large capacity ammunition. At the floor of the gas pedal, at the operator’s feet, police found a magazine. The co-defendant operator was wearing body armor underneath his jacket. Upon his arrest, Defendant had two warrants. Defendant was charged with: Resisting Arrest (G.L. c. 268, §32B), Carrying a Firearm without a License (G.L. c. 269, §10(a)), Carry a Loaded Firearm without a License, Possession of a Firearm without an FID Card (G.L. c. 269, §10(h)), Unlawful Possession of Large Capacity Feeding Device (G.L. c. 140, §131M), and Improper Storage of a Firearm (G.L. c. 140, §131L). The arrest was featured in the news.

Result: In the Brockton District Court, the prosecutor moved to have the Defendant held in jail until his trial on the grounds that he was “dangerous” and there were no conditions of release that would assure the safety of the public or to assure his appearance in court. A 58A Dangerousness Hearing was held in the Brockton District Court. At the hearing, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan had three (3) witnesses prepared to testify. The witnesses would testify that the Defendant was not involved in the drive-by shooting in Boston on January 2, 2021 because the Defendant was at home in his father’s house in Brockton on that date. Essentially, Attorney Noonan had alibi evidence showing that the Defendant was not involved in the Boston shooting. Moreover, the witnesses would testify about the circumstances which led him to be a passenger in the vehicle on the night in question; and the proposed evidence suggested that the Defendant did not know the co-defendant-operator, and that the Defendant was a passenger in his car because he asked for a ride home. Lastly, Defendant’s father would testify that the Defendant has roots in the community and has lived with his father at the same address in Brockton for some period of time and the Defendant had a record of employment. If released, Defendant would continue to reside with his father, as he has always done. The District Court Judge did not allow Attorney Noonan’s witnesses to testify. The District Court Judge found that the prosecution proved that the Defendant was “dangerous,” and found that there were no conditions of release that would assure the safety of the public. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan appealed to the Superior Court. A new 58A Dangerousness Hearing was held in the Superior Court. After the hearing, the Superior Court Judge found that the Defendant was “not” dangerous; effectively reversing the decision of the District Court. Further, the Superior Court found that there were conditions of release that would assure the safety of the public and his appearance in court; effectively reversing the decision of the District Court. The Superior Court released the Defendant from jail on $1,500 cash bail and the conditions recommended by Attorney Noonan. Attorney Noonan is now preparing the case for trial.

See https://whdh.com/news/police-2-arrested-guns-and-ballistic-vest-seized-after-chase-ends-in-brockton-crash/

See https://www.boston25news.com/news/brockton-pursuit-leads-multiple-charges-arrests/LG3NGKLSLJB7HKBZHNA3C4REZY/

See https://wbznewsradio.iheart.com/content/two-arrested-on-firearms-charges-after-fleeing-police-in-brockton/

See https://www.wcvb.com/article/three-police-departments-investigating-brockton-crash/35223556#

See https://www.masslive.com/boston/2021/01/2-men-accused-of-leading-massachusetts-state-police-on-chase-before-crashing-mercedes-into-pole-found-with-armored-vest-guns-ammo-authorities-say.html

See https://www.nbcboston.com/news/local/car-crashes-in-brockton-after-police-chase/2281107/

 

Commonwealth v. J.B.

Wrentham District Court

CHARGES OF POSSESSION OF HEROIN / FENTANYL AND ANABOLIC STEROIDS ARE DISMISSED AGAINST RECOVERING DRUG ADDICT.

 Defendant is a young man who has been struggling with drug addiction since high school. Defendant’s parents obtained a court order under Section 35 to have him involuntarily committed to a hospital due to his severe substance abuse issues. Foxboro Police went to the Defendant’s gym to execute the Section 35 order. When they arrived in the locker room, officers observed the Defendant wiping fresh blood from his forearm. Officers placed him in custody and conducted a pat-frisk finding a bag containing heroin and fentanyl in his pant pocket. Officers searched his gym bag and found anabolic steroids. Defendant was charged in the Wrentham District Court with Possession of Class A Substance (Heroin / Fentanyl) and Possession of Anabolic Steroids under G.L. c. 94C, §34.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan was able to secure a favorable deal from the prosecution called Pretrial Probation. So long as the Defendant passed drug tests and stayed out of trouble, his case would be dismissed. However, Defendant failed two drug tests and the prosecution moved to revoke the deal. Attorney Noonan was able to convince the prosecutor to reinstate the deal and give his client another chance. However, while on pretrial probation, Defendant was arrested in Quincy for Possession of Heroin. As a result, the prosecution revoked the deal and the case was placed back on the trial list. After more than a year of litigation, Attorney Noonan was able to convince the prosecution to give his client one more chance – if he could prove that he had a prolonged period of sobriety and was undergoing drug treatment. The Defendant had undergone opiate treatment with a licensed physician. Through a suboxone treatment program, Defendant was able to stay off heroin, fentanyl and opiates, and he passed drug tests. He re-enrolled in school and he is finishing his final credits to obtain a Bachelor’s Degree in Civil Engineering. He got married, purchased a home, and was working two jobs. After considering all the evidence, the prosecution agreed to dismiss the charges, and the Defendant is doing very well.

Commonwealth v. L.I.

Brockton District Court

FALSE INSURANCE CLAIM:                              DISMISS

FILING FALSE POLICE REPORT:                    DISMISS

ATTEMPTED LARCENY:                                    DISMISS

After an investigation conducted by the Insurance Fraud Bureau of Massachusetts, Defendant was charged with the felony offense of filing a False Motor Vehicle Insurance Claim (G.L. c. 266, §111B), Falsely Reporting a Crime to Police (G.L. c. 269, §13A), and Attempts to Commit the Crime of Larceny (G.L. c. 274, §6). According to the investigation, Defendant falsely reported to the police that, while she was parked in a vehicle, she was struck by another vehicle, which fled the scene. Further, she claimed that she sustained injuries as a result of the hit-and-run accident. She filed a claim with the car insurance company for the injuries she sustained in the car accident. The insurance company conducted an examination of her vehicle, which concluded that the property damage sustained to her vehicle was inconsistent with her report of the incident. Specifically, the vehicle damage showed that her vehicle was traveling, and in motion, when it collided with another vehicle – which was inconsistent with her story that her vehicle was parked at the time she was struck by another vehicle. Further, Defendant was examined under oath by the insurance company and they concluded that her testimony and version of events was inconsistent and not truthful.

Result: After Attorney Patrick J. Noonan was hired by the Defendant, Attorney Noonan got all charges dismissed immediately. Attorney Noonan made arrangements whereby restitution was paid to the insurance company. Attorney Noonan persuaded the prosecutor to dismiss all charges based on the payment of restitution. The client has always worked in the medical field. Currently, she is finishing school to earn a degree in Nursing. A criminal conviction would have prevented her from getting employed as a nurse. This was a great victory for the client, as she will have no guilty finding, conviction, or adverse adjudication against her, and she will be able to pursue her career in nursing.

Commonwealth v. John Doe

Plymouth District Court

ASSAULT & BATTERY: DISMISSED

ASSAULT & BATTERY DANGEROUS WEAPON: DISMISSED

STALKING: DISMISSED

VIOLATION OF RESTRAINING ORDER: DISMISSED

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

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

Commonwealth v. Jane Doe

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

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

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

Commonwealth v. John Doe

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

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

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

Commonwealth v. John Doe

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

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

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

Commonwealth v. John Doe

ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN VACATES CONVICTION FOR DRUG POSSESSION.

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

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

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

Plaintiff vs. Police Department

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

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

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

Plaintiff v. Police Department

Chicopee District Court

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

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

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

Call Today! 508-588-0422 or e-mail us to schedule your free consultation.

Massachusetts Criminal Defense Trial Lawyers

The Law Offices of Gerald J. Noonan has been representing defendants against criminal charges throughout southeastern Massachusetts for more than three decades.