Result

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.”