Tap To Call: 1-508-588-0422

Case Results Clerk’s Hearings

The Law Offices of Gerald J. Noonan rigorously defends clients charged with any drug offense 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) 588-0422.

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.

November 6, 2018
Commonwealth v. G.D. – Stoughton District Court

CRIMINAL CHARGE OF VIOLATION OF A RESTRAINING ORDER DISMISSED AT CLERK-MAGISTRATE’S HEARING.

Client’s wife obtained a 209A Abuse Prevention Restraining Order against him. The wife went to the Canton Police Station to report that the Defendant violated the restraining order because he was taking pictures of her in the parking lot of the courthouse after their court hearing. As a result of the wife’s allegations, the Canton Police filed an Application for Criminal Complaint against the Defendant for Violation of 209A Abuse Prevention Order (G.L. c. 209A, §7).

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan was successful in getting the criminal complaint dismissed at the Clerk Magistrate Hearing. As a result, the client was never charged with this crime and has no criminal record from this incident.

October 25, 2018
Commonwealth v. G.D. – Stoughton District Court

CRIMINAL COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF A RESTRAINING ORDER AGAINST RETIRED BUSINESSMAN DISMISSED AT CLERK-MAGISTRATE HEARING AFTER VICTIM FAILED TO COMPLY WITH ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN’S REQUEST TO PRODUCE HER ONLY CORROBORATING WITNESS.

Client is a retired businessman from Easton who was in the middle of a nasty divorce with his soon-to-be ex-wife. The wife obtained an Abuse Prevention Restraining Order against the Defendant, which prohibited the Defendant from contacting her. The wife went to the Canton Police Station alleging that the client violated the restraining order by having a mutual friend contact her by phone. The wife alleged that the client instructed this mutual friend to contact her and she could hear the Defendant in the background of the telephone call. As a result, the Canton Police filed an Application for Criminal Complaint for Violation of 209A (G.L. c. 209A, §7).

Result: At the first clerk-magistrate hearing, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan argued that his client had no idea who this alleged mutual friend was who supposedly contacted his wife. Attorney Noonan presented evidence that the wife was previously unsuccessful in obtaining a 209A Order against the Defendant. The wife was successful in her second attempt in obtaining a 209A Order. Attorney Noonan filed a Motion to Modify the conditions of the active 209A Order, which was allowed over the objection of the wife and her attorney. Upset about over the outcome of that hearing, the wife went directly to the police station to report this alleged violation. At the first clerk-magistrate hearing, Attorney Noonan requested that the wife produce the mutual friend as a witness to corroborate the wife’s allegation. Attorney Noonan argued that, if the wife could not produce the mutual friend as a witness now or in the future, the criminal charge would ultimately be dismissed – so it made sense to establish now, rather than later, if the wife could produce this witness. The Clerk-Magistrate ordered the wife to produce the mutual friend at the next Clerk’s Hearing. At the next Clerk’s hearing, the wife failed to produce this witness and the Clerk-Magistrate dismissed the case.

October 4, 2018
Commonwealth v. Jane Doe – Gloucester District Court

CHARGE OF NEGLIGENT OPERATION AGAINST COLLEGE STUDENT FOR CAUSING A SERIOUS CAR CRASH ON ROUTE 128 RESULTING IN INJURIES TO SEVERAL PEOPLE IS DISMISSED AT CLERK MAGISTRATE HEARING.

Massachusetts State Police and Gloucester Police were dispatched to Route 128 in Gloucester for a report of a head-on collision car crash. The Defendant, a college student, was driving with her four friends in her vehicle. Defendant approached Exit 13 when she realized that the turn off the exit was sharper than she had anticipated. She applied her brakes and attempted to make the sharp right-hand turn when her vehicle began to skid and she lost control of the vehicle. Her vehicle crossed the highway, traveled across the grassy infield, and struck another vehicle head-on. Investigators determined that the Defendant’s vehicle traveled a distance of 266 feet from the point where she applied her brakes to the point of impact with the other vehicle. There was significant and serious damage to both vehicles. All four passengers in the Defendant’s car were injured and transported to the hospital where several of them suffered from serious injuries. Police charged the Defendant with Negligent Operation of a Motor Vehicle also referred to as Operating to Endanger. G.L. c. 90, §24.

Result: At the Clerk-Magistrate Hearing, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan persuaded the Clerk-Magistrate to drop the Negligent Operation criminal charge and to find his client responsible for speeding. Attorney Noonan pointed out that Exit 13 is a dangerous exit to those unfamiliar with it, as there is a deceptive sharp turn in taking Exit 13. The client was unfamiliar with the sharp turn, which played a factor in the accident. Attorney Noonan argued that his client’s car insurance had ample coverage to compensate those who were injured in the accident. Finally, Attorney Noonan pointed out that his client is an honor student at Salve Regina University in Rhode Island where she is studying in hopes of becoming a medical doctor. The client was negligent in operating her vehicle but Attorney Noonan felt that his client should not have to suffer the consequences of having a criminal record for causing this accident.

September 20, 2018
Commonwealth v. John Doe – Plymouth District Court

ALLEGATIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT FOR THREATS TO COMMIT MURDER BY EX-GIRLFRIEND DISMISSED, AS ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN PRESENTS EVIDENCE THAT THE EX-GIRLFRIEND SOUGHT THE CRIMINAL CHARGE IN ORDER TO GET CUSTODY OF THEIR SON.

Client and his ex-wife girlfriend were in a heated and contentious court battle over the custody of their 18 month-old son in the Family Court. Previously, the girlfriend reported to police that the client had kidnapped their child and brought the child to Florida with no intention of returning the child. As a result of the girlfriend allegations, a warrant issued for the client’s arrest for the crime of Parental Kidnapping (G.L. c. 265, §26A). Attorney Patrick J. Noonan was able to get the Parental Kidnapping charge dismissed prior to arraignment and the client was never charged with that crime. Subsequently, the girlfriend went into the Plymouth Police Department and reported that the client had sent her text messages where he threatened to kill her. As a result of this allegation, the police filed an Application for Criminal Complaint against the client for Threats to Commit a Crime, the crime being Murder (G.L. c. 275, §2).

Result: At the Clerk-Magistrate Hearing, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan presented evidence that the girlfriend was motivated to accuse the client of threatening to kill her as a strategy and as a way to win custody of the child in the Family Court. Attorney Noonan presented evidence that the girlfriend made a written proposal to the client where she stated that she would agree to drop the criminal charges against the client in exchange for the client giving her custody of the child. After the hearing, the Clerk-Magistrate did not issue the criminal complaint against the client.

September 3, 2018
Commonwealth v. John Doe – Westborough District Court

CHARGE OF IMPROPER STORAGE OF A FIREARM AGAINST U.S. NAVY VETERAN DISMISSED AT CLERK-MAGISTRATE’S HEARING.

Westboro Police was notified by the suicide prevention line that they received a phone call from a female who was contemplating suicide and threatened to “shoot themselves.” However, the caller did not leave any information. Police began to ping the cell phone number and they learned that the cell phone belonged to the Defendant. Police then responded to the Defendant’s apartment where they encountered the female caller who stated that her boyfriend, defendant, owned a firearm. Police ran a search, which revealed that the Defendant had a License to Carry Firearms (LTC) from Georgia. Police then questioned the Defendant as to whether he had a firearm in his apartment. Defendant stated that he had his firearm in the bedroom closet. However, the female told police that she had possession of the Defendant’s firearm. Police seized the firearm from the female and transported her to the hospital for a mental health evaluation. Westboro Police charged the Defendant with Improper Storage of a Firearm (G.L. c. 140, § 131L.

Result: At the Clerk-Magistrate Hearing, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan presented evidence regarding his client’s military service. Client was honorably discharged after serving six years in the U.S. Navy. He attained the rank of 2nd Class Petty Officer and worked as an Aviation Electronic Technician. Attorney Noonan presented evidence of awards and medals his client earned from his valiant military service. Client had no criminal record. The client wanted to work for the Department of Defense as a civilian operations network engineer and the outcome of this criminal complaint had the potential to bar him from even applying. In light of the client’s background, military service, and plans for future employment, the clerk-magistrate did not issue the complaint.

June 5, 2018
Commonwealth v. N.T. – Wareham District Court

FELONY THEFT CHARGE AGAINST UNITED STATES POSTAL WORKER FOR STEALING MAIL IS DISMISSED AFTER A CLERK MAGISTRATE HEARING

A named victim called the Wareham Police to report that a Best Buy gift card that he purchased and mailed to his son had been stolen. Police found that the Defendant had stolen and used the Best Buy card. Specifically, police obtained surveillance video showing the Defendant using the stolen Best Buy Card at a Best Buy store. It was learned that the Defendant, a United States Postal Worker, had stolen the Best Buy card from the envelope that it had been mailed in. The intended recipient’s mailing address for the Best Buy gift card was on the Defendant’s assigned route. The U.S. Postal Service conducted a sting investigation to catch the Defendant in the act of stealing mail. They placed a red envelope, containing cash, in the mail for the Defendant’s mailing route. They put an address on the green envelope, which was not on the Defendant’s assigned route. Per procedure, the Defendant was supposed to have returned the green envelope to the Post Office, as it was not in the Defendant’s assigned route. Undercover postal investigators observed the Defendant preparing to leave in her personal vehicle. The postal investigators recovered the red envelope in the Defendant’s personal vehicle.

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan was successful in getting the criminal complaint not to issue against his client. Attorney Noonan argued that his client did not have the intent necessary to commit the larceny of the red envelope, as it did not appear as though the Defendant knew what was inside the red envelope and the Defendant did not have a sufficient opportunity to return the envelope pursuant to postal procedure. This was a very serious charge because it dealt with a theft of federal proportions from the United States Mail by a United States Postal Worker.

May 11, 2018
Commonwealth v. E.M. – Brockton District Court

LARCENY CHARGE AGAINST PARAMEDIC AND BRIDGEWATER STATE UNIVERSITY STUDENT DISMISSED AFTER CLERK MAGISTRATE HEARING

Brockton Police were dispatched to Auto Zone for a reported larceny. Upon arrival, police spoke to the calling party who was an employee working at the cash register. The employee reported that the Defendant came to this register and attempted to purchase three items on his credit card. The cashier told the Defendant that his credit card was declined at which time the Defendant grabbed the items and quickly headed for the door. The cashier yelled to the Defendant, approximately six times, for him to stop and come back into the store. The Defendant fled the store in his vehicle but the cashier wrote down his license plate. The cashier was able to identify the Defendant through the information on his Auto Zone reward card. The officer ran the license plate, which came back to the Defendant. The officer showed a picture of the Defendant’s driver license to the cashier, who immediately identified him as the suspect.

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan persuaded the Clerk Magistrate to dismiss the criminal complaint upon the Defendant’s payment of restitution to Auto Zone for the stolen items. Attorney Gerald J. Noonan saves his client, a paramedic and college student at Bridgewater State University, from having a criminal record.

April 18, 2018
Commonwealth v. O.M. – Brockton District Court

CHARGES DISMISSED AT CLERK’S HEARING FOR ACCIDENT CAUSING INJURIES TO PEDESTRIANS

Our client was charged with Unlicensed Operation of a Motor Vehicle and Marked Lanes Violation as a result of a car accident. Witnesses reported to police that our client’s vehicle turned into a parking lot, drove through a parking space, struck a wooden pillar, went through some bushes, and struck two pedestrians before crashing into a building.

Result: At the Clerk Magistrate Hearing, the injured pedestrians appeared and wanted additional criminal charges brought against the client. Attorney Gerald J. Noonan argued that his client was responsible for causing the accident but she should not be charged criminally because the case was being resolved through his client’s car insurance. Attorney Noonan presented evidence showing that his client’s insurance accepted fault for the accident and his client’s insurance policy had ample coverage to compensate the victims for their injuries.

July 29, 2017
Commonwealth v. J.L. – Salem District Court

ATTORNEY GERALD J. NOONAN CONVINCES CLERK-MAGISTRATE TO DISMISS CRIMINAL COMPLAINT AGAINST 32 YEAR-OLD BARTENDER FOR IMPROPER STORAGE OF A FIREARM SO LONG AS THE CLIENT DOES NOT GET INTO ANY TROUBLE

Defendant, a 32 year-old bartender from Manchester by the Sea, was charged with Improper Storage of a Firearm. Defendant was recently given a license to carry firearms (LTC). Shortly after getting licensed, Manchester by the Sea Police received an e-mail from a woman who had submitted a letter of recommendation on the Defendant’s behalf when he applied for his LTC. The e-mail stated that the woman wished to rescind her recommendation because the Defendant was abusing cocaine and alcohol and had dramatic mood changes and had bouts of severe aggression. After the e-mail, police were called to Defendant’s residence after receiving a call from different woman who reported that the Defendant was abusing substances and had “10 out of 10 rage.” This woman told police that she was concerned because the Defendant had a black handgun in his home. When police arrived, Defendant was not home. Later on, police went to the Defendant’s apartment when he was home. They asked him about his handgun and he denied having any handgun. Police told him that they received a report from a witness that he did have a handgun. Defendant changed his answer and admitted that he had a handgun. When police entered the apartment, they saw that the handgun was not properly secured or stored.

Result: At a Clerk Magistrate Hearing, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan argued that there was insufficient probable cause to support the charge of Improper Storage of a Firearm because the handgun was within the Defendant’s “control.” In order to convict someone of Improper Storage of a Firearm, the Commonwealth must prove that the firearm was not under the Defendant’s control. Here, Attorney Noonan argued that the firearm was within his control because it was sufficiently nearby (only 18 feet away in his bedroom). Moreover, Attorney Noonan stated that his client had no intention of renewing his LTC or owning any firearms in the future. After hearing, the Clerk-Magistrate decided dismiss the criminal complaint after one-year so long as the Defendant does not get into any trouble.

June 12, 2017
Commonwealth v. B.F. – Quincy District Court

CLIENT WHO CRASHED HIS CAR INTO A DITCH AND FLED THE SCENE BECAUSE HE HAD A REVOKED DRIVER’S LICENSE WILL HAVE ALL CHARGES DISMISSED AFTER 4 MONTHS SO LONG AS HE STAYS OUT OF TROUBLE AND PROVIDES PROOF THAT HIS DRIVER’S LICENSE IS REINSTATED.

Holbrook Police responded to a call for a motor vehicle in a ditch. When the police arrived, they could not locate the operator or any other occupants who may have been in the vehicle. Police located the vehicle’s registration showing that it was registered to the Defendant’s wife. Police located the wife and had her come to the police station for questioning. The wife told police that her husband, Defendant, had crashed the vehicle and fled the scene because he did not have a driver’s license. Defendant was charged with Operating with a Revoke Driver’s License, and Leaving the Scene of Property Damage.

Result: At the Clerk Magistrate Hearing, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan presented evidence that his client has taken the steps to clear up his suspended driver’s license. The client owed money to the DMV in North Carolina and Attorney Noonan presented proof that his client paid his fees in full. Client owed money to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in Child Support and Attorney Noonan presented proof that the client paid his child support debts. Lastly, Attorney Noonan presented some evidence to show that his client completed classes that were ordered by the court in North Carolina for a previous driving related offense. The Clerk Magistrate agreed to dismiss the complaints after four months so long as the client stays out of trouble and provides the clerk with proof that his driver’s license is reinstated.

May 22, 2017
Commonwealth v. T.D. – Taunton District Court

ATTORNEY GERALD J. NOONAN GETS 3 CHARGES FOR IMPROPER STORAGE OF A FIREARM DISMISSED AT CLERK’S HEARING SO LONG AS THE CLIENT STAYS OUT OF TROUBLE FOR ONE-YEAR.

Taunton Police executed a search warrant of the residence of the client’s step-father. The client resided in his step-father’s residence. The police were investigating internet crimes against a child. The client was not the target of the investigation. The search warrant authorized police to search any persons present in the home. When the police executed the search warrant, they searched the client’s bedroom where they found, in the client’s bedroom closet, two assault rifles, a Glock 9 mm. and 7 large capacity clips. The found that the firearms and ammunition were not properly secured and they charged the client with 3 counts of Improper Storage of a Firearm.

Result: At the Clerk Magistrate’s Hearing, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan argued that the Commonwealth must present sufficient evidence to prove that the firearms were “not” under the client’s control. Attorney Noonan argued that the firearms were within his client’s control because they were located in his bedroom closet and sufficiently nearby or in close proximity such that the client could access the firearms immediately. The Clerk Magistrate agreed to dismiss the complaint after one year so long as the client stays out of trouble and upon the condition that the client transfers all his firearms to another person who is authorized to possess them.

May 17, 2017
Commonwealth v. J.F. – Lawrence District Court

IMPROPER STORAGE OF FIREARM: DISMISSED AT CLERK’S HEARING

The Police Report states: Lawrence Police called the client into the police station to answer questions with regards to an investigation involving the discovery of the client’s firearm in the possession of another person who had been arrested. According to the police, the client was deceptive in the interview. The client maintained that he lawfully secured his firearm in key lock safe in his home. The person who was found in possession of the firearm was a former boyfriend of the client’s mother. The client speculated that the boyfriend may have stolen the firearm by obtaining the key, which was kept near the safe.

Result: At the Clerk Magistrate’s hearing, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan gets the criminal complaint dismissed and no criminal charge was put on the client’s record.

May 11, 2017
Commonwealth v. D.S. – Marlboro District Court

CHARGE OF IMPROPER STORAGE OF A FIREARM AGAINST WORLD WAR II VETERAN AND RETIRED SECRET SERVICE AGENT DISMISSED AT CLERK’S HEARING AND LICENSE TO CARRY FIREARMS REINSTATED.

Defendant, an 87-year-old resident of Marlboro, was charged with Improper Storage of a Firearm when his pistol was found unattended in the Dollar Tree store in Hudson. An employee at the Dollar Tree discovered the pistol on the floor and contacted the police. After the incident was reported to police, at approximately 3:00 a.m., the police came to the Defendant’s residence where they seized all his firearms and issued him a notice that his License to Carry was suspended. The Law Offices of Gerald J. Noonan contacted the Hudson Police and requested that the matter be scheduled for a Clerk Magistrate’s Hearing rather than proceeding directly to an arraignment, which would result in the criminal charge being entered on the Client’s record. The Hudson Police agreed and the case was scheduled for a Clerk’s Hearing.

Result: At the Clerk’s Hearing, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan persuaded the Hudson Police Department and the Clerk-Magistrate to dismiss the criminal complaint outright. Attorney Noonan argued that the Defendant was unaware that his pistol fell out of his holster because the pistol was so small and light that he didn’t notice it fall out. Attorney Noonan pointed out that the Defendant acted promptly and appropriately once he discovered that his firearm was missing. Upon realizing that his pistol was missing, Defendant retraced his steps and went back to the Dollar and reported to them that his pistol fell out. The Defendant then promptly went to the police department to report the incident. Attorney Noonan explained that his client was an 87 year-old decorated Marine Corps veteran of WWII who’s been a responsible gun owner his entire life. The Defendant was a retired Secret Service agent who served his country and protected Presidents Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Johnson. Because the criminal complaint was dismissed at the Clerk’s Hearing, the client did not have anything put on his criminal record. After the complaint was dismissed, the Law Offices of Gerald J. Noonan petitioned the police department to reinstate the Defendant’s license to carry.

May 10, 2017
Commonwealth v. S.M. – Brockton District Court

CRIMINAL COMPLAINT AGAINST 41 YEAR-OLD STATE EMPLOYEE WITH NO CRIMINAL RECORD FOR LEAVING THE SCENE OF AN ACCIDENT WHILE CAUSING PROPERTY DAMAGE WILL BE DISMISSED OUTRIGHT IN ONE-YEAR SO LONG AS THE CLIENT STAYS OUT OF TROUBLE.

The Client was a 41-year-old state employee of Massachusetts who worked for the Department of Transportation and the Department of Children and Families and she had no criminal record. The Police Report states: A civilian witness reported that he was stopped in bumper-to-bumper traffic in Whitman when he was rear-ended by another vehicle. After the accident, the witness attempted to exchange information with the other driver, the Defendant, who refused to provide any information and then fled the scene in her vehicle. The other driver took a picture of the Defendant’s license plate and reported it to police. Police went to the Defendant’s home and observed damage to her vehicle. Defendant admitted that she was the driver and that she was in an accident. She stated that she thought she had exchanged her information but didn’t think the accident was her fault. The officer told her that she was the cause of the accident because she was following the other vehicle too closely. The Defendant became agitated and told the officer to leave her property.

Result: At the Clerk Magistrate Hearing, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan presented written statements of two witnesses, who were passengers in the Defendant’s vehicle at the time of this incident. Witness #1 stated that the other driver jumped out of his car and shoved the witness. The other driver became confrontational as Witness #1 took photos of the other driver’s vehicle, which did not appear to have any real damage. The other driver stated that he was going to call the police. The defendant and her party remained at the scene but the police never arrived so they left. Witness #2 confirmed that the other jumped out of his car and shoved Witness #1. Witness #2 stated that they waited at the scene for 30 minutes but the police never came. Witness #2 was recovering from recent heart surgery and requested that the Defendant take her home because she was shaken up by the event and wasn’t feeling well. The Defendant is a 41 year-old state employee who worked for the Mass. Department of Transportation and the Department of Children and Families. She had no criminal record. The issuance of the criminal complaint would have affected the Defendant’s employment with the State. After hearing, the Clerk-Magistrate decided to keep the criminal charge of Leaving the Scene of Property Damage open for one-year to be dismissed after that time so long as the Defendant stays out of trouble. The Defendant was ordered to pay $80 in fines.

April 19, 2017
Commonwealth v. A.N. – Brockton District Court

FELONY DESTRUCTION OF PROPERTY CHARGE AGAINST 35-YEAR-OLD COMPUTER PROGRAMMER IS DISMISSED AT CLERK MAGISTRATE’S HEARING AND NO CRIMINAL CHARGE WILL BE ON CLIENT’S RECORD.

The Police Report states: a Brockton City employee was snow plowing a residential street in Brockton when the Defendant, who was standing at the end of his driveway with a shovel, struck the City vehicle with his shovel causing $1,000 in damage to the vehicle. At the Clerk Magistrate Hearing, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan presented his client’s side of the story. The Client was shoveling his driveway. The conditions were very snowy and there was poor visibility. As the client was shoveling snow at the end of his driveway, he saw a snow plow driving in his direction. The client saw that the snow plow was driving very close to the side of the street and he believed that the snow plow might drive across or into the client’s driveway. The client raised his shovel to warn the snow plow driver that he is coming too close to his driveway. As the snow plow passed by, it was very close to the client’s driveway, and as the client was holding his shovel up in the air to warn the driver, the shovel struck the side of the truck.

Result: At the Clerk Magistrate Hearing, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan presented evidence that his client did not intend to damage the truck and only struck the truck with his shovel because he believed that the truck might hit him. At the hearing, the snow plow driver stated that the damage to his truck was $1,500 but Attorney Noonan argued that hitting the side of this heavy-duty truck with a shovel would not cause that much damage. Attorney Noonan convinced the Clerk Magistrate to dismiss the criminal complaint upon the client’s payment of $250 for the damage to the truck.

April 7, 2017
Commonwealth v. M.C. – Brockton District Court

ATTORNEY GERALD J. NOONAN CONVINCES CLERK-MAGISTRATE TO DISMISS GUN CHARGES AGAINST LOCAL RESTAURANT OWNER.

Client, a 41 year-old owner of a local restaurant and resident of Abington, was charged with Improper Storage of a Firearm and Failure to Surrender his Firearms to Police. The Police Report alleged: Abington Police were dispatched to the Client’s residence for a domestic dispute with his girlfriend. The Client had a valid License to Carry Firearms (LTC). When the police arrived to his residence, the Client responsibly informed the Police that he legally owned and possessed an AR-15 Assault Rifle and a .40 Caliber Smith and Wesson handgun. Prior to the police arriving, the Client placed all his firearms on his kitchen table so that the police were made aware that he possessed guns in his home. When the domestic dispute was resolved, the police instructed the Client to secure his firearms. As the client was securing his firearms, the police observed that the AR-15 Assault Rifle was not properly secured, as it was not in a secured container or equipped with a trigger lock. As a result, the police informed the Client that he would be charged with Improper Storage of the Firearm. As he was being charged with a firearms offense, the Client was required by law to surrender all his firearms to the police. The Client failed to promptly surrender his firearms to the police and was charged with that offense as well.

Result: The Client received notice that he would be arraigned in court on the gun charges. If he were arraigned, the gun charges would go on the Client’s criminal record. Attorney Gerald J. Noonan filed a Motion to Dismiss the case prior to his Client’s arraignment on the grounds that his Client was entitled to a Clerk-Magistrate’s Hearing prior to being arraigned. The charges were dismissed prior to arraignment and the Client was given his right to a Clerk Magistrate’s Hearing. At the Clerk Magistrate’s Hearing, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan presented evidence that his Client had his Assault Rifle trigger-locked prior to the police arriving to his home. The trigger lock was on his nightstand in his bedroom but the Client forgot to trigger-lock the rifle when the police were watching him secure his firearms. The Client forgot to trigger lock his rifle because he was nervous when the police were watching him secure his firearms. With regards to the charge of Failure to Surrender his Firearms, Attorney Noonan showed that his Client surrendered his firearms less than 48 hours after the police instructed him to. After taking Attorney Noonan’s arguments into consideration, the Clerk Magistrate dismissed all charges thereby saving his client from having any criminal charges on his record.

March 22, 2017
Commonwealth v. N.K. – Brockton District Court

CRIMINAL CHARGES AGAINST PARALEGAL ARE DISMISSED AS ATTORNEY GERALD J. NOONAN PRESENTS ALIBI EVIDENCE SHOWING THAT THE DEFENDANT WAS SOMEWHERE ELSE AT THE TIME OF THE CRIME.

State Police were dispatched to the scene of a motor vehicle crash on Route 24. Upon arrival, the officer spoke to a woman who was the victim of a hit and run accident. Upon arrival, the officer observed that the victim was in distress.

The victim stated that she was rear-ended by a black SUV. The female operator of the black SUV approached the victim to inquire if she was injured to which the victim stated that she was injured. The female operator then fled the scene. The victim described the female operator as having black curly hair and light skin.

The officer observed significant rear-end damage to the victim’s vehicle especially damage to the vehicle’s rear hatchback. The victim told the officer that she suffered injuries to her head, neck, and back. The victim was taken by ambulance to the emergency room. A couple days later, the victim contacted the officer and told him that she found the other vehicle’s license plate inside the rear of her hatch-back. The officer ran the vehicle’s license plate, which came back to the Defendant. The officer printed out the Defendant’s driver’s license photo and presented a photo array to the victim. Without hesitation, the victim identified the Defendant’s picture as the woman who hit her vehicle and fled the scene. The State Police filed applications for criminal complaints against the Defendant for: Leaving the Scene of an Accident causing Personal Injury. The Defendant was a paralegal at a reputable law firm.

Result: At the Clerk Magistrate’s Hearing, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan presented certified hospital records showing that the Defendant was a patient in the hospital at the time of the hit and run accident so the Defendant could not have the perpetrator. After presenting this alibi evidence, the Clerk-Magistrate dismissed the criminal complaint.

February 16, 2017
Commonwealth v. A Juvenile – Brockton Juvenile Court

CHARGES AGAINST JUVENILE FOR JOY-RIDING A VEHICLE WITHOUT A DRIVER’S LICENSE AND CAUSING A SERIOUS ACCIDENT RESULTING IN INJURIES TO A PREGNANT WOMAN ARE DISMISSED AT CLERK MAGISTRATE’S HEARING.

Client was a 15 year-old high school honor student who did not have a driver’s license. The client took a motor vehicle on a joy-ride without the owner’s permission and caused a serious motor vehicle accident resulting in injuries to a pregnant driver and her infant child. The client smashed into another vehicle. The other vehicle was being operated by a woman who was three-months pregnant with her infant child riding in the backseat. Due to the severity of the crash, the pregnant woman and her infant child were injured and taken to the emergency room.

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan was successful in having all criminal complaints dismissed at a Clerk-Magistrate’s Hearing. Attorney Noonan argued that the client was suffering from major depression due to serious head injuries she sustained in a prior motor vehicle accident. Attorney Noonan argued that his client’s decision in taking the vehicle for a joy-ride was the result of the bad mental state she was in. Attorney Noonan presented evidence that his client is receiving psychological treatment and has greatly improved. Attorney Noonan argued that this was an isolated incident and totally out of character for his client who was an honors student. The Clerk-Magistrate dismissed all criminal complaints and no charges were entered on client’s record.

February 16, 2017
Commonwealth v. A.M. – Brockton District Court

ATTORNEY GERALD J. NOONAN SAVES HIS CLIENT FROM SERVING ONE YEAR IN JAIL FOR COMMITTING NEW CRIMES IN VIOLATION OF HIS PROBATION.

The Defendant went to Market Basket in Brockton and did some shopping. He placed groceries into his shopping basket, which included cereal, cold cuts, milk and eggs. At the service desk, Defendant put his shopping basket down and purchased some cigarettes using a gift card. After purchasing the cigarettes, Defendant picked up shopping basket and exited the store without paying for the groceries in his shopping basket. A security guard apprehended the Defendant outside and brought him back into the store. Defendant returned the shopping basket. Defendant allegedly assaulted the security guard by pushing him and the Defendant allegedly ran out of the store and fled the scene in his vehicle. The loss prevention department pulled video footage of the Defendant fleeing in his vehicle. Brockton Police ran the vehicle’s registration, which came back to the Defendant. Brockton Police showed the security guard the Defendant’s driver’s license photo. The security guard identified the Defendant as the person who left the store without paying for his groceries and the security guard identified the Defendant as the person who assaulted him.

Defendant had a prior criminal record, which included serving one year in jail for Breaking & Entering and stealing $6,000. At the time of this Clerk’s Hearing, Defendant was serving a suspended sentence for Larceny and Receiving Stolen Property.

Result: At the Clerk Magistrate Hearing, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan argued that the Defendant did not intentionally steal the groceries but mistakenly left with the shopping basket after paying for his cigarettes. Attorney Noonan argued that the Defendant cooperated with the security guard, explained that he forgot to pay for the groceries, and offered to pay for the groceries. Attorney Noonan argued that the security guard was the aggressor and that the security guard put his hands on the Defendant and the Defendant responded by pushing the security guard away. The Defendant then left the store feeling as though he had been mistreated. Attorney Gerald J. Noonan was successful in having all criminal complaints dismissed. Attorney Gerald J. Noonan saved his client from serving one year in jail because the issuance of these criminal complaints would be a violation of his suspended sentence.

October 12, 2016
Commonwealth v. Juvenile – Brockton Juvenile Court

CRIMINAL COMPLAINT AGAINST STATE CHAMPION HOCKEY PLAYER AND HONOR STUDENT FOR USING FAKE I.D. TO PURCHASE ALCOHOL DISMISSED AT CLERK’S HEARING

Client, 17 year-old high school senior, was charged with using a fake I.D. to purchase alcohol at a liquor store. Massachusetts General Law Chapter 90, § 8H prohibits the use of forged identification cards.

Result: At a Clerk Magistrate Hearing, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan persuaded the Clerk-Magistrate and the Police Prosecutor to dismiss the criminal complaint against his 17 year-old client. Client was a senior in high school. He was a member of the National Honor Society. He is graduating in the top 15% of his class. He scored 1340 on his SATs. He was the Captain of a junior hockey team that won the State Championship. Client is applying to several top colleges and universities in New England. Because the criminal complaint was dismissed at the Clerk’s Hearing, the client has a clean criminal record.

Having a criminal record poses a serious problem for students applying for admission to colleges and universities. The Common Application used by more than 600 institutions asks students certain questions about their criminal history. However, the U.S. Department of Education is urging schools to remove questions about a student’s criminal record in the early stages of college applications. The Common Application for the upcoming school year will still ask whether students have been found guilty of a misdemeanor or felony but will remove part of the question asking about any other crimes. “The Common Application used for college admissions at more than 600 institutions is changing a question it asks about students criminal records, as the U.S. Department of Education urges schools to drop the question altogether.” Christine Armario, Associated Press (2016)

August 26, 2016
Commonwealth v. J.W. – New Bedford District Court

THREATS TO COMMIT CRIME: DISMISSED at CLERK’S HEARING

The defendant went to business to donate two mattresses. After the defendant unloaded the mattresses, an employee informed the defendant that the business does not accept mattresses with box springs. According to the employee, the defendant became angry and threatened him by saying, “Is this worth it? Do you want me to kick your ass?” The employee told the defendant that he was reporting the threat to his manager. When the employee returned with his manager, they observed the defendant leave in his pickup truck. The employee called the police, reported the threat, and provided police with the license plate of the pickup truck. The defendant was charged with Threats to Commit a Crime for making the threat to the employee.

Result: At a Clerk Magistrate Hearing, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan argued that the alleged victim misunderstood the defendant’s statement and took it out of context. In actuality, the defendant said to the employee, “Is this worth it? I don’t want to get into a fight over this.” As Attorney Noonan argued, this statement does not constitute a “threat” under the law because the defendant did not “express an intent to injure” the employee. Based on Attorney Gerald J. Noonan’s arguments, the clerk magistrate dismissed the criminal complaint.

August 12, 2016
Commonwealth v. S.B. – Brockton District Court

IMPROPER STORAGE of FIREARM: DISMISSED

Police were dispatched to the Defendant’s residence in response to a 911 call. Upon arrival, police spoke to the Defendant’s brother-in-law who reported that he received a call from the Defendant’s wife telling him that the Defendant was highly intoxicated and she needed help. They wanted to bring the Defendant to the hospital so he could receive treatment for his substance abuse issues. Defendant refused and became argumentative. Prior to the police arriving, Defendant fled from the house. Police were concerned because the Defendant was wearing only a T-shirt and shorts and it was freezing outside. Later, police observed the Defendant fighting with his brother-in-law in the street. The fight caused a disturbance in the neighborhood. After breaking up the fight, police arrested the Defendant for Disturbing the Peace. After his arrest, police received information that some of the Defendant’s firearms may have been missing from his gun locker. The Defendant’s wife directed officers into the basement of their home and gave them permission to search the Defendant’s gun locker. The police observed that the gun locker was partially open and not locked. Due to the locker not being securely locked, police charged the Defendant with Improper Storage of a Firearm and seized all his firearms, which included: six rifles, two shotguns, and ammunition.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan filed a Motion to Suppress arguing that the Defendant’s wife did not have lawful authority to give police consent to search the Defendant’s private property. The hearing on the Motion to Suppress was continued. Prior to the next scheduled hearing, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan persuaded the District Attorney’s Office to dismiss the Improper Storage of a Firearm.

July 21, 2016
Commonwealth v. K.R. – Waltham District Court

IMPROPER STORAGE of FIREARM: DISMISSED AT CLERK’S HEARING

Defendant was a retired 62 year-old grandfather of three with no criminal record. It was alleged that the Defendant negligently left his loaded revolver in a public bathroom.

Result: At a Clerk Magistrate Hearing, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan persuaded the Clerk-Magistrate not to issue the criminal complaint against his client. The Clerk-Magistrate accepted Attorney Gerald J. Noonan’s proposal to dismiss the criminal complaint after six-months, so long as the Defendant does not commit any offenses. The criminal complaint will be dismissed on January 21, 2017, so long as the Defendant does not commit any new offenses.

March 28, 2016
Commonwealth v. C.D. – Attleboro District Court

LEAVING THE SCENE: NO COMPLAINT ISSUED

Defendant was traveling on Route 495 South returning from dinner with friends. Defendant was cut off by another vehicle. Defendant swerved to avoid a collision, lost control of his vehicle, and ended up in the woods off the highway in an embankment. Upon arrival, the police found the Defendant sitting on the guardrail in the breakdown lane near his vehicle. Police administered field sobriety tests and the Defendant passed them all. Officers informed him that he may receive a summons in the mail for Leaving the Scene of an Accident. Defendant did receive a summons for Leaving the Scene of an Accident and immediately contacted Attorney Patrick J. Noonan. Attorney Noonan immediately requested a Clerk Magistrate’s Hearing and sought a copy of the Police Report.

Result: On the day before the Clerk’s Hearing, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan was informed that the police department was withdrawing the criminal complaint. Defendant had no criminal record and was nearing graduation from the police academy.

January 7, 2016
Commonwealth v. M.S. – Brockton District Court

IMPROPER STORAGE OF FIREARM: DISMISSED PRIOR TO ARRAIGNMENT

Defendant, the president of a company with no prior criminal record, was charged with Improper Storage of a Firearm when police searched his apartment and found a fully loaded handgun in the drawer to his nightstand in his bedroom. The fully loaded handgun was not equipped with a trigger lock and was not secured in any locked container. At his arraignment, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan filed a Motion to Dismiss Prior to Arraignment successfully argued that the Defendant was denied his statutory right to a Clerk Magistrate’s Hearing prior to the issuance of any criminal charges. The case was remanded for a Clerk’s Hearing.

Result: After getting the case dismissed prior to arraignment, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan persuaded the police prosecutor and the clerk magistrate to hold the matter open for a period of one year. If the Defendant stays out of trouble for one year, the charge will be dismissed prior to arraignment and he will not have any criminal charges on his record.

December 7, 2015
Commonwealth v. K.S. – Quincy District Court

NEGLIGENT OPERATION: DISMISSED at CLERK’S HEARING

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

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

June 16, 2015
Commonwealth v. M.R. – Brockton District Court

ASSAULT & BATTERY: DISMISSED at CLERK’S HEARING

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

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

June 11, 2015
Commonwealth v. J.R. – Brockton District Court

THREATS TO COMMIT CRIME: DISMISSED

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

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

November 12, 2014
Commonwealth v. R.K. – Plymouth District Court

VIOLATION OF 209A: DISMISSED AT CLERK’S HEARING

Defendant’s wife took out an abuse prevention order against him stemming from an incident where the Defendant threatened his wife in the presence of their children. The 209A Order contained a provision prohibiting the Defendant from abusing his wife and from contacting his wife. Defendant was charged with violating the order by sending his wife an e-mail. At the Clerk’s Hearing, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan argued that the Defendant did not receive full notice of restraining order because the police had not served it a copy upon him yet – but rather read the terms of the order to him over the phone. Attorney Noonan argued that the Defendant did not have actual knowledge that the order contained a “no-contact” provision – but the Defendant’s understanding was that the order was to refrain from abuse.

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan persuades clerk-magistrate not to issue Violation of Restraining Order charge against his client.

November 4, 2014
Commonwealth v. R.M. – Brockton District Court

THREATS TO COMMIT A & B: DISMISSED (CLERK’S HEARING)

Client, 37 year-old business owner, was charged with Threats to Commit a Crime stemming from allegations that he threatened to assault and beat an ex-employee and the ex-employee’s father. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan argued that this was a simple verbal argument over a paycheck. The Magistrate agreed with Attorney Noonan to keep the matter open for a period of 3 months and to dismiss the case at that time.

Result: No criminal complaint issued and the client was able to complete the process of trying to become a Massachusetts State Trooper.

August 6, 2014
Commonwealth v. S.G. – Hingham District Court

SHOPLIFTING: DISMISSED at CLERK’S HEARING

Client, 50-year-old school teacher with no criminal record, was charged with Shoplifting by concealing items at Hannaford’s in Norwell. At the Clerk’s Hearing, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan presented strong character evidence on his client’s behalf as being a highly respected educator in the town of Marshfield. The issuance of the criminal complaint would severely jeopardize the client’s employment and likely result in her termination as a school teacher.

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan convinced the clerk-magistrate not to issue criminal complaint against school teacher.

April 8, 2014
Commonwealth v. W.M. – Brockton District Court

SHOPLIFTING: DISMISSED at CLERK’S HEARING

Client, 23 year-old man with no criminal record was arrested and charged with Shoplifting at Walmart. Client admitted to police that he stole the merchandise and surveillance video footage captured the client leaving the store without paying for the merchandise. At the Clerk-Magistrate’s Hearing, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan convinced the Magistrate to dismiss the criminal complaint. Client will be applying to the Mass. School of Art in the Fall (2014) and he aspires to be a cartoonist.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan persuades court not to issue a criminal complaint, and client may report on his school application that he has no criminal record.

April 1, 2014
Commonwealth v. L.G. – Wrentham District Court

SHOPLIFTING: DISMISSED at CLERK’S HEARING

Client, 23 year-old college student with no criminal record, was detained by the Loss Prevention Department at Walmart for suspected Shoplifting. Client retained Attorney Patrick J. Noonan who successfully dismissed the criminal complaint at the Clerk-Magistrate’s Hearing on April 1, 2014. Client is scheduled to graduate from college in the Fall of 2014 with a bachelor’s degree in Criminal Justice.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan persuades court not to issue a criminal complaint, and client may report on her job applications that she has no criminal record.

February 12, 2014
Commonwealth v. A.T. – Hingham District Court

VIOLATION OF 209A ORDER: DISMISSED at CLERK’S HEARING

Client, 69 year old restaurant owner, was arrested and charged with Breaking & Entering Nighttime for Felony, Assault, and Criminal Harassment stemming from an incident with his ex-girlfriend. The alleged victim obtained an Abuse Prevention Order against the Defendant in connection with the criminal charges. The alleged victim reported to Police that the Defendant called her in violation of the 209A Order, which prohibited the Defendant from contacting her. At the Clerk Magistrate’s Hearing, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan established that the Defendant mistakenly dialed the victim’s phone number by accident when he attempted to call another person.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan convinces Clerk-Magistrate to not issue the criminal complaint, as it was an inadvertent mistake by the Defendant.

November 26, 2013
Commonwealth v. A.M. – New Bedford District Court

POSSESSION OF ALCOHOL (THIRD OFFENSE): DISMISSED

Campus police charged client, 20 year-old sophomore at University of Massachusetts Dartmouth, with being a minor in possession of alcohol. This was the Defendant’s third alcohol-related incident at the college. The head detective for the school’s department of safety strongly recommended that a criminal complaint issue against the Defendant because this was his third alcohol-related offense on campus. At the Clerk’s Hearing, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan presented extensive evidence with regards to the client’s character, background, schooling, prospective employment, and ongoing substance abuse treatment.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan persuades the Clerk-Magistrate to not issue the criminal complaint saving his client from a one-year suspension from college.

October 24, 2013
Commonwealth v. S.R. – Stoughton District Court

LEAVING SCENE OF PROPERTY DAMAGE: DISMISSED

Client, a professional truck driver of 40 years, was charged with Leaving the Scene of Property Damage. Defendant worked for a tractor-trailer company. He was dispatched to deliver a 60-foot trailer to a residence in Canton. On the way to the residence, Defendant struck a large overhanging tree limb, which remained on the top of the trailer. The tree limb then pulled down cable wires from two residences. At the Clerk’s Hearing, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan introduced evidence that the Defendant was unaware that he struck the tree limb and cable wires. Photographs showed the large size of the trailer. Photos of the side mirrors show that it would have been impossible for the Defendant to see the tree limb.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan persuades Clerk-Magistrate not to issue the criminal complaint against professional truck driver of 40 years.

October 21, 2013
Commonwealth v. M.P. – New Bedford District Court

LARCENY over $250: DISMISSED at CLERK’S HEARING

Client, 18-year-old college freshman, with no criminal record was charged with Larceny over $250 (felony) stemming from a shoplifting incident where she was alleged to have stolen $267.00 in merchandise from Macy’s. At the Clerk-Magistrate’s Hearing, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan thoroughly described the Defendant’s background, employment, schooling, and future aspirations.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan convinces Clerk-Magistrate not to issue criminal complaint because it would seriously jeopardize his young client’s future.

July 12, 2013
Commonwealth v. S.K. – Brockton District Court

INDECENT EXPOSURE: DISMISSED at CLERK’S HEARING

Client, 43-year-old car salesman, was charged with Indecent Exposure stemming from an incident in which his neighbors reported that they observed him standing naked in front of his apartment window for an extended period of time. At the Magistrate’s Hearing, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan cross-examined the neighbor-witnesses and established that each witness did not observe the Defendant’s genitals exposed. The charge was dismissed on the grounds that there was insufficient probable cause to support the criminal complaint.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan persuades Clerk-Magistrate not to issue criminal complaint due to lack of evidence.

July 10, 2013
Commonwealth v. M.M. – Brockton District Court

LARCENY: DISMISSED at CLERK’S HEARING

Client, 43-year-old former school teacher and nurse, was charged with Larceny under $250 stemming from allegations that she aided a co-defendant in defrauding a business. At the Clerk Magistrate’s Hearing, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan dismissed the complaint arguing that there was insufficient probable cause to support the charges.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan convinces Clerk-Magistrate not to issue criminal complaint against nurse with no criminal record.

May 1, 2013
Commonwealth v. R.M. – Brockton District Court

LARCENY BY FALSE PRETENSE (6 counts) DISMISSED at CLERK’S HEARING

Client, 41-year-old Realtor and Businessman, was charged with 6 counts of Larceny by False Pretense stemming from allegations that he defrauded six business by offering them false advertisement space in a publication of the Massasoit Community College newspaper. A Clerk’s Hearing was conducted in which six representatives of the defrauded businesses testified. At the Clerk’s Hearing, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan examined the witnesses and established that none of the victim-businesses sustained a financial loss, as needed to support the charge.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan convinces Clerk-Magistrate to not issue criminal complaint charging his client with six felony offenses for lack of evidence.

February 7, 2013
Commonwealth v. J.H. – Quincy District Court

MALICIOUS DESTRUCTION: DISMISSED at CLERK’S HEARING

Client, 39 year-old machine operator, charged with Malicious Destruction of Property over $250 (felony) stemming from an altercation in which he punched and damaged the hood of the alleged victim’s Honda SUV. Prior to the hearing, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan obtained documentation from the insurance company because the alleged victim filed a property damage claim for the damage sustained to the hood of his car. At the hearing, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan argued that the damage to the hood was non-existent and not visible based on the photographs taken by the insurance company. Attorney Noonan argued that the alleged victim had a motive to paint the Defendant in a negative light for purposes of a child custody battle.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan convinces Clerk-Magistrate not to issue a criminal complaint on the felony property damage charge.

October 4, 2012
Commonwealth v. W.P. – Plymouth District Court

OPERATING TO ENDANGER: DISMISSED at CLERK’S HEARING

Client, 19 year-old youth aspiring to enlist in the military, was charged with Operating to Endanger and Failure to Stop for Police stemming from a high-speed motorcycle chase where speeds reached in excess of 100 mph. At a Magistrate’s Hearing, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan successfully dismissed the case arguing that the issuance of the criminal complaint would ruin his client’s future.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan persuades Clerk-Magistrate not to issue criminal complaint allowing his client to enlist in the military.

September 26, 2012
Commonwealth v. J.G. – Hingham District Court

SHOPLIFTING: DISMISSED PRIOR TO ARRAIGNMENT

Client, 24 year-old recent college graduate with no criminal record, was charged with Shoplifting over $100 stemming from an incident in which she allegedly stole two bracelets from Kohl’s Department Store. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan successfully dismissed the charge prior to arraignment and remanded the matter for a Clerk-Magistrate’s Hearing at which time the case was dismissed outright.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan gets criminal charge dismissed prior to arraignment so no charges appear on recent college graduate’s record.

June 5, 2012
Commonwealth v. L.J. – Stoughton District Court

LARCENY: DISMISSED at CLERK’S HEARING

Client, 46 year-old medical secretary with no criminal record, was charged with Larceny over $250 (felony) stemming from a shoplifting incident in which she allegedly stole over $250 worth of merchandise from Kohl’s Department Store.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan persuades Clerk-Magistrate to not issue criminal complaint for shoplifting against medical secretary.

March 7, 2012
Commonwealth v. J.W. – New Bedford District Court

THREATS TO COMMIT ASSAULT & BATTERY: DISMISSED
ASSAULT & BATTERY: DISMISSED

Alleged Victim #1 is the mother of the Defendant’s child. She told police that the Defendant that the Defendant came over to pick his son for a visit and instigated a fight with her husband and threatened to kick his ass. The husband (Alleged Victim #2) stated that the Defendant jumped out of his truck, threw his coat on the ground, and began shouting expletives at him. The Defendant also threatened to “light him up” and goaded him by saying, “Make my day.” Defendant refused the leave the property until they called the police. Later in the day, the alleged victim and her husband went to the Defendant’s house to pick up the son. She stated that the Defendant attacked her husband in the driveway by grabbing him, putting him over the trunk of the car, and repeatedly struck him in the face until the Defendant’s mother pulled him off. Police observed fresh scratches and red marks to the face of the husband, Alleged Victim #2. Police observed that Alleged Victim #2’s clothing was disheveled. Alleged Victim #2 stated that the Defendant grabbed him by the face and threw him into his car and assaulted him until the Defendant’s mother pulled him off. Alleged Victim #1 obtained an emergency restraining stating that there has been a history of threatening behavior by the Defendant. At a clerk-magistrate hearing, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan presented testimony of witnesses to the incident showing that the Defendant acted in self-defense. The mother and brother of the Defendant testified that the Defendant acted in self-defense when Alleged Victim #2 clenched his fist and raised it at the Defendant. The Defendant, in response, grabbed Alleged Victim #2 and placed his chest against the trunk of the car. Witnesses testified that the Defendant never punched Alleged Victim #2. Defendant stated that he would not let the Alleged Victim go because he felt that the Alleged Victim might attack him. Testimony was presented that the Alleged Victim claimed some responsibility in the altercation by admitting that he had made some mistakes. Testimony was presented that the Defendant remained calm, cool, and collected when the police arrived. Lastly, Attorney Noonan presented evidence that there has been a history of animosity between the parties prior to this incident.

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan persuades clerk-magistrate not to issue criminal complaint against electrician.

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

ASSAULT & BATTERY DANGEROUS WEAPON: DISMISSED
MALICIOUS DESTRUCTION OF PROPERTY: DISMISSED

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

OPERATING UNDER THE INFLUENCE: DISMISSED PRIOR TO ARRAIGNMENT

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.

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

CRIMINAL HARASSMENT: DISMISSED
CRIMINAL HARASSMENT: DISMISSED

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.

December 8, 2010
Commonwealth v. C.B. – Brockton District Court

BREAKING & ENTERING: DISMISSED
LARCENY over $250: DISMISSED

Defendant was alleged to have broken into his girlfriend’s apartment and stolen a mirror, Northface jacket, and $480 in cash. Attorney Gerald J. Noonan was able to get the criminal complaints dismissed and remanded for a clerk-magistrate’s hearing. Originally, Brockton Police sought a show cause hearing and the criminal complaint issued because the Defendant failed to appear. Attorney Noonan presented evidence that the Defendant never received notice of the show cause hearing because the summons was returned, as it was sent to an insufficient address. Because the Defendant failed to appear at the show cause hearing, Cambridge Police arrested him at his business. The Cambridge Police, however, mistakenly brought the Defendant to the Cambridge District Court for an arraignment when they were supposed to bring him to the Brockton District Court. As a result, Defendant was held in the House of Correction for three days until he was transported to the Brockton District Court (the correct court) for his arraignment. Patrick J. Noonan (then a third-year law student) filed a Memorandum of Law for the clerk-magistrate to consider in determining whether to issue the criminal complaints. With regards to the Breaking & Entering, Patrick J. Noonan argued in the Memo that the Defendant did not break into the “dwelling place of another” because he had a right to habitation and occupancy in the apartment. See Commonwealth v. Robbins, 422 Mass. 305 (1996). Specifically, Defendant paid rent, had a key to the apartment, and lived in the apartment for four-months prior to the incident. With regards to the Larceny, Attorney Noonan presented evidence that the mirror belonged to the Defendant, not the alleged victim. Specifically, Attorney Noonan presented photographs of the mirror that pre-dated the alleged incident in the custody of the Defendant. With regards to the Northface jacket, Attorney Noonan presented evidence that the Defendant purchased the Northface jacket on his credit card and provided a copy of his bank statement to the clerk-magistrate. Lastly, Attorney Noonan argued that the Defendant was a jilted lover and upset at the Defendant for breaking up with her and getting back together with his wife. Attorney Noonan presented Facebook messages (post-dating the incident) sent to the Defendant’s wife from the alleged victim where she blasts the Defendant for breaking up with her but she mentions nothing about the alleged breaking and entering and larcenies.

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan convinces clerk-magistrate not to issue criminal complaints on felony charges against his client.

October 14, 2008
Commonwealth v. S.M. – Hingham District Court

LEAVING THE SCENE PROPERTY DAMAGE: DISMISSED
OPERATING RECKLESSLY: DISMISSED

Police received two calls reporting that they heard loud skidding followed by a loud crash. Upon arrival, police observed fresh skid marks and damage to a stone wall in front of someone’s property. The vehicle drove off striking a second stone wall. Boulders from the stone wall were scattered all over the homeowner’s front lawn. Police found a license plate at the scene, which was registered to the Defendant. Police went to the Defendant’s residence and observed fresh heavy damage to his vehicle with the license plate missing. Defendant admitted to police that he had been driving in the area and he must have lost control of his vehicle but he denied hitting any stone wall.

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan persuades clerk-magistrate not to issue criminal complaints against recent college graduate.

June 15, 2005
Commonwealth v. K.B. – Brockton District Court

OUI-LIQUOR: DISMISSED

Client, a senior at Stonehill College, was arrested and charged with Operating under the Influence of Liquor. On March 25, 2005, Bridgewater Police were dispatched for a report of a suspicious vehicle in a driveway. Upon arrival, Police observed the vehicle backing out of the driveway. Police followed the vehicle, which pulled forward and stopped. The officer approached the vehicle and knocked on the window. The officer asked the operator to turn down the radio but the operator turned off the ignition. The officer observed a strong odor of alcohol coming from the operator’s breath, that his speech was slurred, and that his eyes were glassy. Defendant could not locate his registration. The Defendant failed the alphabet test. The officer asked the Defendant to touch his left index finger to his nose but the Defendant bent over and touched his toes. The Defendant could not touch the tip of his nose with his index finger. Finally, the Defendant failed the nine-step walk and turn after several attempts. Attorney Gerald J. Noonan successfully dismissed the case and no criminal complaint issued against his client and Attorney Gerald J. Noonan obtained an order restoring the Defendant’s driver’s license.

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan gets OUI-Liquor charge dismissed against college student and his driver’s license restored.

January 14, 2019
Commonwealth v. B.G.

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.

Need Help? Contact Us Now 1-508-588-0422
CTA <span>case results</span> Drug Crimes
talk to a

Personal Injury Lawyer in Brockton MA

When someone else’s wrongful actions injure you or take the life of a loved one, you need a Brockton personal injury attorney on your side who knows how to get results. Contact The Law Offices of Gerald J. Noonan today for a free, no-obligation consultation. There are no upfront costs for us to start work on your case, and you only pay us if we win money for you.

CTA <span>case results</span> Drug Crimes
Request a
Free Consultation