Tap To Call: 1-508-588-0422

Case Results Violent Crimes

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.

February 13, 2020
Commonwealth v. S.F.

MANSLAUGHER:               NOT GUILTY

 

In 2015, Defendant was charged with Manslaughter (G.L. c. 265, §13) for allegedly selling heroin to a middle-man, the middle-man distributed the heroin to a victim, and the victim consumed the heroin and died of a drug overdose. Manslaughter requires proof that the Defendant’s act of selling heroin was wanton and reckless and that his act of selling heroin was the cause of the victim’s death. At this time in 2015, there was case law and precedent in Massachusetts finding that a Defendant’s sale of heroin was wanton and reckless so as to support a charge of Manslaughter.  In 2016, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan filed a Motion to Dismiss arguing that the Defendant’s act of selling heroin to a middle-man was not wanton and reckless and was insufficient to support the Manslaughter charge. Attorney Noonan argued that the case law in the Commonwealth was outdated. In his Motion to Dismiss, Attorney Noonan argued that there is no per se rule finding that the sale of heroin, by itself, was sufficient to convict a Defendant of Manslaughter. Attorney Noonan argued that the Commonwealth must present evidence, in addition to the sale of heroin, to establish wanton and reckless conduct, such as: the potency of the heroin, the quantity of the heroin, and the Defendant’s knowledge regarding the victim (such as the victim’s prior drug use, prior overdoses, vulnerability, etc.) In his Motion to Dismiss, Attorney Noonan argued that there was insufficient evidence to support the Manslaughter charge because: the potency of the heroin was weak; the heroin was not laced with any other substances increasing the risk of overdose; the quantity of the heroin was small (consistent with personal use); and the Defendant did not even know the victim and did not sell directly to the victim. The Motion to Dismiss was denied.

 

At trial, Defendant was represented by Attorney Patrick J. Noonan and Brendan J. Noonan. At the close of the Commonwealth’s case, Attorney Noonan filed a Motion for Required Finding of Not Guilty; echoing the arguments that were raised in his pretrial Motion to Dismiss and applying the facts presented at trial. In his Motion for Required Finding of Not Guilty, Attorney Noonan argued that the Commonwealth merely presented evidence that the Defendant sold heroin which, by itself, was not sufficient to convict him of Manslaughter. First, Attorney Noonan pointed out that the heroin was of low-strength.  In particular, the heroin was only 24% pure and weaker than the average dose of heroin on the street. A DEA Chemist testified at trial that the average street level strength of heroin is between 20% – 60%, placing the Defendant’s heroin at the weak end of the spectrum. Second, Attorney Noonan argued that the heroin was not laced with any other substances, such as Fentanyl, which would increase the risk of an overdose. Third, Attorney Noonan argued that the Defendant sold a small quantity of heroin consistent with personal use. Fourth, Attorney Noonan argued that the Defendant did not even know the victim and did not sell the heroin directly to her but instead sold the heroin to a middle-man. The trial judge denied Attorney Noonan’s Motion for Required Finding of Not Guilty and the Defendant was convicted of Manslaughter on April 6, 2018.

 

While the Defendant’s appeal was pending, there was a similar appeal pending before the Supreme Judicial Court where a Defendant had been convicted of Manslaughter for selling heroin to the victim. In this related appeal, (Commonwealth v. Jesse Carrillo), the Defendant (Carrillo) was raising the same arguments that the Noonan’s raised in their pretrial Motion to Dismiss and in their Motion for Required Finding of Not Guilty at trial. The Defendant’s appeal was stayed (or put on hold) until the SJC made a decision in Carrillo. On October 3, 2019, the SJC in Carrillo held that: As an issue of first impression, evidence that the Defendant transferred heroin to the victim, without more, was insufficient to support a Manslaughter conviction. Given the SJC’s new decision, it was clear that the Defendant’s conviction should be overturned. The Defendant sought a highly skilled appellate attorney who fought hard on his behalf. Following the SJC’s decision in Carrillo, Defendant’s appellate attorney renewed Attorney Noonan’s Motion for Required Finding of Not Guilty. The District Attorney’s Office assented to (or agreed) to the Renewed Motion for Required Finding of Not Guilty and the Trial Judge entered a finding of Not Guilty.

June 23, 2020
Plaintiff v. Defendant

RESTRAINING ORDER AGAINST DEFENDANT TERMINATED DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE DEFENDANT HAD BEEN CHARGED WITH COMMITTING VIOLENT OFFENSES AGAINST THE PLAINTIFF, INCLUDING CRIMINAL CHARGES FOR VIOLATING THE RESTRAINING ORDER ON THREE DIFFERENT OCCASIONS.

The Plaintiff is the former girlfriend of the Defendant. Defendant was charged with many serious crimes against his ex-girlfriend, including Stalking (G.L. c. 265, § 43), Assault & Battery with a Dangerous Weapon (G.L. c. 265, § 15A), and Assault & Battery (G.L. c. 265, §13A). The Plaintiff provided police with a cell phone video showing that the Defendant had jumped on her car, gained access to the inside of her car, and began driving her car, while the Plaintiff was seated in the passenger seat screaming out in fear. She provided police with photographs of injuries to her arm that were inflicted by the Defendant. She told police that she broke up with the Defendant but he continually stalked her. When the Defendant was arraigned on those criminal charges, the girlfriend obtained a 209A Abuse Prevention Restraining Order against the Defendant, which ordered him to stay away from her, not contact her, and not abuse her. While the Restraining Order was in effect, the Defendant violated the restraining order because he had contacted the girlfriend several times and showed up to her workplace. As a result of the violations, Defendant was criminally charged with three-counts of Violation of an Abuse Prevention Order (G.L. c. 209, §7).

Result: A hearing was scheduled on the Plaintiff’s request to extend the restraining order against the Defendant. The Plaintiff had a very good chance of prevailing in her request to extend the restraining order because the Defendant was currently charged with a multitude of violent crimes against her, and he had violated the restraining order three different times. Defendant hired Attorney Patrick J. Noonan to represent him on the criminal charges. Attorney Noonan is aggressively defending him on the criminal charges, he filed a Motion to Dismiss the Stalking charge, he has retained an expert witness, he has conducted his own investigation into the allegations, and he has been pressing for more evidence. The Plaintiff obtained an temporary extension of the 209A Order with the Court by telephone, but Attorney Noonan demanded an evidentiary hearing on her request to extend the restraining order. The Plaintiff had shown all indications that she would be pursuing an extension of the restraining order. She has been heavily involved in the Defendant’s prosecution, provided police with evidence of his crimes, including videos, photos, e-mails, and text messages. It was expected that she would appear at the hearing to request an extension of the Order, but she did not appear and the Order was vacated.

October 16, 2020
Jane Doe vs. John Doe

Falmouth District Court

A VICTIM OF HARASSMENT HIRES ATTORNEY GERALD J. NOONAN WHO SUCCESSFILLY OBTAINS A HARASSMENT PREVENTION RESTRAINING ORDER AGAINST THE PERPETRATOR.

The client, a stay at home mom and resident of Falmouth, was the subject of harassment from a neighbor. The client reported the incidents of harassment to the police, but the police declined to charge the neighbor with any crimes. It was a she-said he-said scenario and her word against his. The client was the victim of the neighbor’s continuous acts of harassment and she did not feel safe from him. The client would encounter the neighbor regularly and did not feel safe around him.

Result: The client hired Attorney Gerald J. Noonan to obtain a Harassment Prevention Restraining Order against the neighbor. In order to obtain a Harassment Prevention Order under G.L. c. 258E, the Plaintiff has the burden of presenting evidence of at least three incidents of harassment. The statute defines harassment as “3 or more acts of willful and malicious conduct aimed at a specific person committed with the intent to cause fear, intimidation, abuse or damage to property and that does in fact cause fear, intimidation, abuse or damage to property.” After conducting an investigation, Attorney Noonan gathered sufficient evidence to meet his burden of proof. Attorney Noonan was able to obtain a Harassment Prevention Order, which ordered the neighbor to not contact her, to stay away from her, and to refrain from abusing or harassment her.

May 12, 2021
Commonwealth v. D.M.

Taunton District Court

ATTORNEY GERALD J. NOONAN GETS DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CHARGE AGAINST TRUCK DRIVER DISMISSED.

Client is a 52 year old truck driver and Taunton resident. Police were called to the Defendant’s residence for a reported domestic dispute. Upon arrival, the girlfriend told police that the Defendant became angry, grabbed her by both arms, and shoved her against the wall. The girlfriend showed police bruises to her arms, claiming that the bruises were from his fingertips when grabbing her. Defendant denied the allegations. Defendant was charged in the Taunton District Court with Assault & Battery on a Family / Household Member pursuant to G.L. c. 265, §13M(a).

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan scheduled the case for trial and provided the Commonwealth with evidence that the girlfriend was intoxicated and had been drinking liquor while also taking psychiatric medications and the Defendant called the police because she was argumentative. The girlfriend became upset with the Defendant because he called the police on her and she was concerned that she would get into trouble. In fact, the girlfriend never called the police, the defendant did. Defendant contended that the girlfriend made up the allegations because she was upset that the Defendant called the police on her and was worried that she would get into trouble. Defendant contended that the marks on the girlfriend’s arms were old marks that she sustained while performing physical labor at work. The Commonwealth dismissed the case.

September 15, 2021
Commonwealth v. P.N.

Taunton District Court

CHARGES OF ASSAULT AND MALICIOUS DESTRUCTION OF PROPERTY AGAINST 18 YEAR OLD DEFENDANT DISMISSED UPON ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN’S EFFECTIVE REPRESENTATION.

Defendant is an 18 year-old kid with no prior criminal record. He was residing with his girlfriend, at her parents’ home, when they had an argument and he left the home. The police were called to the girlfriends home in response to a call that the Defendant kicked the front door of the home, and punched a car in the driveway; damaging the property. Defendant was yelling and screaming while causing the property damage. The girlfriend provided police with text messages from the Defendant in which he expressed suicidal ideations. The police located the Defendant; the police sectioned him and brought him to the hospital for treatment. Defendant was charged with Assault on a Family / Household Member pursuant to G.L. c. 265, §13M(a) and Malicious Destruction of Property under $1,200 pursuant to G.L. c. 266, §127.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan requested a bench trial. At the first scheduled bench trial, the Commonwealth was not ready to prosecute, Attorney Noonan asked for the case to be dismissed, the Commonwealth objected, but the court granted a continuance. At the second bench trial, the Commonwealth offered a deal which would require the Defendant to admit guilt, which the Defendant declined. At the second bench trial, the Commonwealth was not ready, and Attorney Noonan again asked for a dismissal, which the Court denied. Attorney Noonan persuaded the Court to schedule the trial to be heard later in the day. At the second calling of the case, the Commonwealth was unable to go forward and Attorney Noonan’s third request for a dismissal was allowed.

September 15, 2021
Commonwealth v. John Doe.

ATTORNEY GERALD J. NOONAN GETS CRIMINAL COMPLAINTS AGAINST U.S. POSTAL WORKER FOR THREATENING TO SHOOT HIS GIRLFRIEND’S FATHER DISMISSED AT A CLERK MAGISTRATE HEARING.

The parents of the Defendant’s girlfriend did not like him. The parents believed that the Defendant was abusive to their daughter. The parents claimed that the Defendant beat their daughter with a phone charger. The father went to the Defendant’s home to confront him. The father observed a firearm on the kitchen counter. The father alleged that the Defendant threatened to shoot him with the firearm on the kitchen counter. The father claimed that the Defendant threatened him should the father call the police. As a result, the police filed an Application for Criminal Complaint against the Defendant for two counts of Threats to Commit a Crime pursuant to G.L. c. 275, §2.

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan was able to get the criminal complaints dismissed at the Clerk’s Hearing. The girlfriend’s parents wanted the Defendant charged with the crimes. Attorney Noonan presented evidence showing that the parents’ belief that the Defendant was abusive to their daughter was unfounded. Attorney Noonan presented evidence from the girlfriend that the Defendant was never abusive towards her – seriously undermining the abuse complaints by her parents. The parents had an axe to grind against the Defendant. They did not like him and they did not want him dating their daughter and they had a strong motive to have the Defendant charged with a crime. Attorney Noonan attacked the credibility of the parents, and showed that the Defendant never abused their daughter, contrary to their claims. After a Clerk-Magistrate Hearing, the complaint was dismissed.

December 2, 2021
Commonwealth v. C.B.

Plymouth District Court

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CHARGES DISMISSED UPON EVIDENCE THAT THE ALLEGED VICTIM HAD A 5TH AMENDMENT PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION.

Defendant’s longtime girlfriend called the police reporting that the Defendant physically assaulted her by punching her in the face multiple times. On the 911 call, the girlfriend was highly emotional, crying, and hysterical. She stated that the Defendant fled the home in his car. Upon arrival to the home, the girlfriend told the police that the Defendant pushed her into a wall. Police took photographs of a damaged wall. The girlfriend had an abrasion with dried blood on her elbow, but she did not have any marks to her face. Police located the Defendant at his place of work. Defendant stated that he never punched or struck his girlfriend. In fact, the girlfriend assaulted him, and he pushed her while attempting to escape from her. The girlfriend admitted that she pushed the Defendant first. The Defendant had visible injuries corroborating his claim that the girlfriend attacked him. Police took photos of the Defendant showing scratches on his chest, arms, neck, and back. Based on the statements of the girlfriend, Defendant was charged in the Plymouth District Court with Assault & Battery on a Family / Household Member pursuant to G.L. c. 265, §13M(a) and Assault & Battery with a Dangerous Weapon pursuant to G.L. c. 265, §15A(b).

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan immediately scheduled the case for a bench trial. Attorney Noonan placed the Commonwealth on notice of his intent to raise self-defense and to introduce evidence that the girlfriend was the initial aggressor. Attorney Noonan argued that the alleged victim would incriminate herself were she to testify at trial because the evidence showed that she attacked the Defendant and inflicted injuries to his body, as evidenced by the injuries to the Defendant depicted in the photos. On the day of the bench trial, the Commonwealth dismissed all charges.

December 28, 2021
Commonwealth v. John Doe

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CHARGE AGAINST ENGINEER DISMISSED AT CLERK MAGISTRATE HEARING UPON ATTORNEY GERALD J. NOONAN’S REPRESENTATION.

Abington Police were dispatched to a residence for a reported domestic violence incident. Upon arrival, police spoke with the Defendant’s wife who alleged that the Defendant punched her in the face. Police observed an open wound to the alleged victim’s eyes, and observed that she was visibly upset and crying. Photographs were taken of the injuries to the alleged victim’s face. As a result, Defendant was charged with Assault and Battery on a Family / Household Member pursuant to G.L. c. 265, §13M.

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan was able to get the criminal complaint dismissed at the Clerk-Magistrate Hearing where Attorney Noonan asserted that the alleged victim had a Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination and that she would be invoking her Marital Privilege by refusing to testify against her husband at trial. Attorney Noonan argued that, without the alleged victim’s testimony, there was insufficient evidence to prove that his client committed the Assault and Battery. The client had no criminal record. He has been gainfully employed as a Distribution Manager with a career goal of obtaining a professional engineering license. The issuance of a criminal complaint would have affected the Defendant’s ability to obtain a professional engineering license, and his ability to obtain future employment, all necessary to support his wife and two children. Attorney Noonan presented numerous character letters. After considering all the evidence, the Clerk-Magistrate dismissed the criminal complaint.

March 8, 2022
Commonwealth v. C.M.

Taunton District Court

DEFENDANT FOUND NOT GUILTY OF AGGRAVATED ASSAULT & BATTERY WITH A DANGEROUS WEAPON ON A CHILD AFTER ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN PRESENTS THE DEFENSE OF PARENTAL DISCIPLINE TO THE JURY.

The Defendant was charged with Assault & Battery with a Dangerous Weapon on a Child under 14 pursuant to G.L. c. 265, §15A, which carries a maximum state prison sentence of 15 years. The evidence presented at trial was as follows: Defendant had several children, including the alleged victim, who was his 11 year-old son. The alleged victim testified that the Defendant became angry, pushed him, and struck him seven times in the buttocks with a wooden spoon. The Defendant struck the child so hard that the wooden spoon broke. At the police station, police took photographs of the injuries to the child, including numerous linear marks and bruises on the child’s buttocks, and a mark on his left shoulder. When questioned by police, Defendant stated that he spanked the child with his hand, and never used an object or wooden spoon.

Result: At trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan and Attorney Gerald J. Noonan presented the defense of parental discipline. In 2015, the Massachusetts Court recognized the defense of parental discipline in Commonwealth v. Dorvil, 472 Mass. 1 (2015), which provides that a parent, stepparent or guardian may use reasonable force against a minor child, under his care, if it is reasonable and reasonably related to a legitimate purpose. At trial, the defense introduced evidence that the child had a history of misbehavior. All disciplinary methods failed and the child’s misbehavior continued to escalate. On the weekend in question, the child was beating up his siblings on several occasions. The defendant placed the child in time-out and took away his privileges, which proved unsuccessful. In addition, the child’s grandmother attempted to correct his behavior with time-outs, but the child continued to act up. The defendant warned the child that if he continued to misbehave he would be spanked. The child continued to be rough with his younger siblings, and the Defendant took a wooden spoon and spanked him on the buttocks, over the child’s thick sweatpants. After the spanking, the child went upstairs and spoke with his grandmother. Although the child was initially upset and crying in the immediate aftermath, after his conversation with the grandmother, he was fine, no longer crying, and went to play with his sister, laughing along the way. Attorney Noonan argued that the marks to the child’s buttocks, and the pain from the spanking, was only temporary. The jury found the Defendant not guilty.

July 6, 2022
Commonwealth v. John Doe

Plymouth District Court

IN A HIGH PROFILE CASE, PATRICK J. NOONAN WINS NOT GUILTY VERDICTS IN CASE OF STRANGULATION, ASSAULT & BATTERY, AND THREATS. CASE WAS FEATURED IN THE NEWS. 

The client, a military veteran and retired pilot with no criminal record, was charged in the Plymouth District Court with criminal complaints of Assault & Battery (G.L. c. 265, §13A), Strangulation (G.L. c. 265, §15D), and Threats to Commit a Crime (G.L. 275, §2). The charges stem from an incident between the client and a teenager over a property dispute in Marshfield. The case was featured in Channel 7 News. The teenager reported to the police that the Defendant confronted him about trespassing on his property in Marshfield. The teenager reported that the Defendant grabbed him and threw him to the ground and proceeded to choke and strangle him by the neck while repeatedly threatening to kill him.

Result: At the jury trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan effectively cross-examined the alleged victim and thoroughly attacked his credibility and revealed a multitude of contradictory information and inconsistent statements. Attorney Noonan then called his client to the witness stand. The client denied assaulting, strangling, and threatening the alleged victim. After brief deliberations, the jury quickly returned not guilty verdicts on all charges.

https://whdh.com/news/marshfield-man-acquitted-in-assault-trial/

 

December 16, 2022
Plaintiff v. Brockton Police

Brockton District Court

CLIENT’S APPLICATION FOR A LICENSE TO CARRY FIREARMS WAS DENIED DUE TO AN ARREST FOR DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, BUT ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN CONVINCES THE COURT TO REVERSE THE DECISION AND HIS CLIENT HAS BEEN ISSUED AN LTC. 

The client applied for a License to Carry Firearms. The police department denied the application because the client was arrested and charged with Assault & Battery and Assault & Battery with a Dangerous Weapon stemming from a domestic violence incident. On appeal, Attorney Noonan presented evidence that the alleged victim of the domestic violence incident recanted and changed the story she provided to the police. Further, the alleged victim submitted an Affidavit in support of the client’s application for an LTC. The criminal charges were later dismissed. The police department never interviewed the alleged victim. After a hearing in which the Firearm Licensing Officer and the Client testified, the court agreed with Attorney Noonan that the decision to deny the application was arbitrary and without reasonable ground and the court issued an order for the Police Department to issue his client a License to Carry Firearms.

January 9, 2023
Commonwealth v. C.M.

Mass. Appeals Court

Docket No.: 102 Mass. App. Ct. 1106 (2023)

Commonwealth v. C.M.

APPEALS COURT AGREES WITH ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN THAT A NEW HEARING IS REQUIRED TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE DEFENDANT’S PRIOR ATTORNEY WAS INEFFECTIVE.

Defendant, represented by prior counsel, was charged with two-counts of Assault & Battery stemming from two separate incidents in which his ex-wife accused of him physically assaulting her. The case was scheduled for trial. On the advice of his prior attorney, Defendant pled guilty and was sentenced to two years of probation with the condition to complete the batterer’s program. Defendant instantly regretted pleading guilty and admitting to the allegations that he physically assaulted his ex-wife. While represented by new counsel, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan, Defendant alleged that his prior attorney made certain representations to him, which caused him to plead guilty. The issue was whether the prior attorney’s representation to the Defendant amounted to ineffective assistance of counsel, which would invalidate the Defendant’s plea. Attorney Noonan filed a Motion to Withdraw the Pleas and requested a new trial, which was denied by the plea judge. Attorney Noonan appealed the plea judge’s decision to the Massachusetts Court of Appeals, who found that it was error to deny the Defendant’s motion. The Appeals Court vacated the denial of the Defendant’s motion and ordered a new hearing in the District Court to determine whether prior counsel provided ineffective assistance of counsel. It is important to note that the Defendant has not yet proven that prior counsel was ineffective, but the Appeals Court found that the Defendant raised enough of an argument to mandate an evidentiary hearing, with testimony, to determine whether prior counsel was, in fact, ineffective..

January 24, 2023
Commonwealth v. John Doe

Plymouth Superior Court

CLIENT WAS CONVICTED AFTER A JURY TRIAL OF RAPE AND INDECENT ASSAULT & BATTERY, BUT ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN WINS NEW TRIAL BASED ON NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE. 

Attorney Patrick J. Noonan represented the Defendant at a trial in the Plymouth Superior Court on indictments charging him with Rape of Child and Indecent Assault & Battery. The jury found the Defendant guilty on all charges. One-week after the guilty verdict, Attorney Noonan came into possession of newly discovered evidence and immediately filed a Motion for New Trial. Attorney Noonan argued that the newly discovered evidence casts serious doubt on the justice of the conviction and this newly discovered evidence would have played a real factor in the jury’s deliberations. After a hearing, the trial judge agreed with Attorney Noonan and granted the Defendant a new trial. Attorney Noonan was able to secure his client’s release pending his new trial.

February 6, 2023
Commonwealth v. John Doe

Taunton District Court

FIREFIGHTER PLEADS GUILTY TO ASSAULT & BATTERY, BUT ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN WINS NEW TRIAL AFTER PROVING THAT THE DEFENDANT’S PLEA WAS NOT MADE INTELLIGENTLY AND VOLUNTARILY.

In 2018, Defendant pled guilty to two-counts of Assault & Battery on a Family / Household Member pursuant to G.L. c. 265, §13M. As a result of his guilty plea, the Defendant lost his job as a firefighter. Defendant hired Attorney Patrick J. Noonan for the purpose of withdrawing his plea, vacating his conviction, and awarding him a trial. Attorney Noonan interviewed the Defendant regarding his decision to plead guilty, and obtained a transcript of the plea hearing. Whenever a Defendant enters a plea of guilty, the judge is required to follow certain rules to ensure that the Defendant’s plea is made intelligently and voluntarily. After thoroughly reviewing the transcript of the plea hearing, Attorney Noonan believed that the judge did not follow the proper procedure in conducting the plea. The prosecution argued that the plea hearing was properly conducted. After a hearing, the court agreed with Attorney Noonan that the plea hearing was not conducted properly, and the court vacated the convictions. The Defendant is now entitled to a trial.

April 18, 2023
Commonwealth v. John Doe

Stoughton District Court

ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN VACATES A CONVICTION FOR DOMESTIC ASSAULT & BATTERY FROM 1963 AGAINST 83 YEAR-OLD KINGSTON MAN.

Defendant was convicted in 1963 after having pled guilty to committing an Assault & Battery on his then-wife. Defendant, now 83 years-old, applied for a License to Carry Firearms but was automatically disqualified due to the domestic violence conviction. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan moved the court to vacate the conviction in the interests of justice, and the Court agreed. Now that the conviction is vacated, the client is eligible to apply for a License to Carry Firearms.

June 5, 2023
Commonwealth v. Two Defendants

Quincy District Court

ATTORNEY GERALD J. NOONAN WINS DISMISSAL OF ASSAULT & BATTERY CHARGES AGAINST FATHER AND SON ARISING OUT OF A GROUP FIGHT ON A PARTY BUS. 

Defendants, father and son, were on a party bus. They were celebrating the birthday of their mother / wife by treating her to an evening on a bus, which visits local restaurants and drinking establishments. There were other people on the party bus. The other group members were very intoxicated; they were loud, and disruptive. The son asked the group to refrain from using profanities and vulgarities because they were trying to have a nice evening with the family. The other group members were shouting at the driver to turn up the music. An argument, which turned physical, ensued between the two groups. During this altercation, members of the other group alleged that both defendants were aggressive, and started a fight, and threw punches. A female member of the other group was punched in the face and she sustained a bloody nose. Defendants denied starting the fight and denied punching the female. Both defendants were charged with Assault & Battery (G.L. c. 265, §13A). Attorney Gerald J. Noonan represented both clients at a Clerk-Magistrate Hearing, but despite his zealous advocacy the clerk found that there was sufficient evidence to charge them. The clerk found that the issues raised by Attorney Noonan were trial issues. Attorney Gerald J. Noonan prepared the case for trial. On the day of trial, all charges were dismissed against the Defendants.

June 28, 2023
Commonwealth v. John Doe

Commissioner of Probation

CONVICTIONS FOR ASSAULT & BATTERY WITH A DANGEROUS WEAPON AND WITNESS INTIMIDATION ARE SEALED FROM CLIENT’S RECORD.

Our client was convicted for Assault & Battery with a Dangerous Weapon (G.L. c. 265, §15A), Assault & Battery (G.L. c. 265, §13A), and Witness Intimidation (G.L. c. 268, §13B). The client contacted our law office to have the convictions sealed from his record. Our law office was able to seal all criminal convictions from the client’s record.

August 8, 2023
Commonwealth v. John Doe

Brockton District Court

ATTORNEY GERALD J. NOONAN CONVINCES CLERK-MAGISTRATE TO DISMISS ASSAULT & BATTERY COMPLAINT UPON PROOF THAT THE ALLEGED VICTIM WAS THE AGGRESSOR WHO INITIATED THE CONFRONTATION. 

Defendant is a man with no criminal record. He was having dinner and some drinks at his favorable pub where he was a regular. On prior occasions, pub employees complained about the conduct of another patron. In particular, a female employee had complained about this patron before. On this occasion, the client happened to be seated next to this troublesome patron. The client began to videotape the patron to send to the female employee. Enraged at being recorded, the patron grabbed the client’s cell phone, causing both men to fall off their bar stools, knocking over a female patron in the process. Defendant was charged with Assault & Battery (G.L. c. 265, §13A).Result: At a Clerk-Magistrate Hearing, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan argued that there was insufficient probable cause to charge the client with Assault & Battery because the evidence showed that the other patron was the aggressor who initiated the confrontation, and the client merely acted reflexively in response to the other patron grabbing and pulling at his cell phone. The client had no intent to commit any touching, as his actions were purely reactionary to having his cell phone grabbed and pulled out of his hand. The Clerk-Magistrate did not issue any criminal complaint against our client. Therefore, the client does not have any criminal record arising out of this incident.

December 14, 2018
Commonwealth v. J.A. – Suffolk Superior Court

WITNESS INTIMIDATION: NOT GUILTY
THREATS: NOT GUILTY
ASSAULT & BATTERY with DANGEROUS WEAPON: NOT GUILTY
ASSAULT & BATTERY with DANGEROUS WEAPON: NOT GUILTY
ASSAULT & BATTERY with DANGEROUS WEAPON: GUILTY

Defendant, and five other Defendants, were employees at a juvenile detention center, which housed juveniles who had been adjudicated delinquent (or found guilty) for crimes and sentenced to serve sentences. The juveniles claimed that the Defendants would regularly threaten them, sexually abuse them, and physically abuse them. The juveniles claimed that the Defendants engaged in a ritualistic form of abuse known as “orange chicken” to punish or discipline them. The orange chicken assault involved the juvenile’s underwear being pulled down and getting smacked on the bare buttocks with an orange rubber sandal. If a juvenile complied with the orange chicken, the punishment would be less severe but if they resisted the assault would more severe. Defendants instructed other juveniles to participate in administering orange chicken assaults to other juveniles. The abuse was not limited to orange chicken assaults, as the juveniles described other forms of physical and sexual abuse by the Defendants. The Department of Children and Families and the Massachusetts State Police conducted an extensive investigation, which resulted in the juvenile facility being completely shut down. The District Attorney’s Office conducted an extensive grand jury investigation, which involved the testimony of juveniles, employees, law enforcement, and resulted in the production of thousands of pages of records and documents.

Result:

Defendant was charged with Witness Intimidation (G.L. c. 268, §13B) to Victim #1 based on Victim #1’s testimony that the Defendants engaged in conduct designed to prevent the juveniles from reporting the abuse. Specifically, the Defendants threatened to put a “green light” on a juvenile if they reported the abuse. A “green light” meant that if a juvenile reported abuse they would be attacked at any other juvenile facility they went to because the Defendants had connections with other facilities. At the close of the Commonwealth’s case, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan had a Not Guilty finding entered on the Witness Intimidation charge because the Commonwealth failed to present sufficient evidence against his client.

Defendant was charged with Threats (G.L. c. 275, §2) to Victim #1 based on Victim #1’s testimony that Defendants threatened to give Victim #1 an orange chicken assault, if Victim #1 did not participate in orange chicken assaults on other juveniles. At trial, Attorney Noonan impeached Victim #1 with prior statements he made where he told police he didn’t recall being told that if he did not participate in orange chicken, he would be next. The most important piece of evidence that won an acquittal on the Threats charge was Attorney Noonan’s cross-examination of Victim #1 where he got Victim #1 to admit that his client never made any such threat to him.

Defendant was charged with Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon (G.L. c. 265, §15A) on Victim #2 based on Victim #2’s testimony that the Defendant assaulted him in the laundry room, forcibly pulled down his pants, and beat him on the bare buttocks with a sandal. Attorney Noonan presented evidence that Victim #2 had falsely accused another staff member of assaulting him in the laundry room during this same incident.

Specifically, Victim #1 testified at the grand jury that this other staff member assaulted him in the laundry and Victim #1 even sued this other staff member for assaulting him in the laundry room. However, when questioned about the incident in the laundry room, Victim #2 admitted that the other staff was not involved. Moreover, Attorney Noonan questioned the facility’s program director at trial who stated that she viewed surveillance video from the laundry room area on the date of the incident and there was no video to corroborate Victim #2’s allegations that the Defendant assaulted him in the laundry room. The police even viewed the video, which did not show any evidence that the Defendant assaulted him in the laundry room. Lastly, Victim #2 claimed that after the assault in the laundry room, he was discharged from the facility. Attorney Noonan presented evidence that Victim #2 met with his case worker shortly after the alleged assault in the laundry room and he did not say anything to his case worker about it.

Defendant was charged with Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon on Victim #3 based on the testimony of a former employee who testified that he witnessed the Defendant beat Victim #3 with a sandal in the cafeteria. The Commonwealth gave this former employee immunity to testify against all defendants. This former employee testified that he personally participated in the assault on Victim #3 in the cafeteria and he witnessed the Defendant participating in the assault. However, during Victim #3’s trial testimony, he testified that the Defendant was present for the incident in the cafeteria but he could not recall if the Defendant participated. During his closing argument, Attorney Noonan cited the law, which states that “no defendant…shall be convicted solely on the basis of the testimony of…a person granted immunity.” G.L. c. 233, §20I. Attorney Noonan argued that the only evidence of the Defendant involvement in the assault and battery on Victim #3 came from the testimony of an immunized witness. Attorney Noonan argued and the Commonwealth failed to prove the Defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, as the Commonwealth did not present any other evidence to corroborate the testimony of its immunized witness.

Defendant was charged with Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon on Victim #3 based on Victim #3’s testimony that the Defendant choked him with a wooden drumstick in the hallway. The jury convicted the Defendant on this one and only charge. However, Attorney Noonan presented evidence that there were cameras that would have captured the incident in the hallway and the program director testified that she did not see any video footage of any assault on Victim #3 in the hallway. Moreover, Victim #3 testified that he assaulted the Defendant for no reason. Attorney Noonan argued that the Defendant was legally entitled to use force to restrain juveniles in the course of his employment and he had a right to act in self-defense. Attorney Noonan cited the testimony of another employee who stated that “restraints” on juveniles’ are difficult to perform alone without any assistance from other employees. This employee testified that it is very difficult to perform a “restraint” in the manner they are trained to do where a juvenile violently attacks an employee and an employee has to do whatever he can to restrain the juvenile. In this case, Defendant was violently attacked by Victim #3 who was known to be violent and had previously attacked other juveniles and staff. The Commonwealth did not present evidence of the entire incident or the full picture of what happened. How can the Commonwealth say that the Defendant’s force to restrain Victim #3 was unreasonable when there were so many unanswered questions about what actually happened? How can it be said that the Defendant’s restraint was excessive when the Commonwealth did not any present evidence with regards to the severity of Victim #3’s assault on the Defendant? Defendant’s response would be appropriate if he was faced with a violent assault by a violent person.

At the end of this lengthy trial, the jury acquitted the Defendant on all charges, except for one.

November 15, 2018
Commonwealth v. B.S. – Brockton District Court

CHARGE OF ASSAULT WITH INTENT TO MURDER AGAINST MARINE CORPS VETERAN WITH SEVERE MENTAL ILLNESS DISMISSED.

Defendant was committed to the Veteran’s Hospital in Brockton. Defendant physically assaulted another patient by punching him twice in the face. Defendant then stabbed a nurse in the neck with a ballpoint pen. Defendant suffers from Schizoaffective Disorder, Bipolar Type and presents with prominent symptoms of psychosis, including significant auditory hallucinations and delusions. Defendant hears voices telling him to do things. However, law enforcement took the position that the Defendant was legally responsible for his actions, knew exactly what he was doing, and that his mental illnesses did not play any factor in his attack on the nurse and other patient. Specifically, law enforcement alleged that the Defendant’s attack was premeditated and he planned the attack about an hour and half earlier. Defendant stated that the voices in his head did not tell him to attack the nurse. Defendant stated that he stabbed the nurse because he wanted to experience the feeling of killing someone. According to law enforcement, the attending physician could not say for certain whether the Defendant was legally responsible for his actions due to his mental illness. Defendant was charged with Assault with Intent to Murder (G.L. c. 265, §15), Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon (G.L. c. 265, §15A), Assault & Battery (G.L. c. 265, §13A), and Disorderly Conduct (G.L. c. 272, §53).

Result: Defendant was found incompetent to stand trial. The Commonwealth petitioned to have the Defendant committed to the Bridgewater State Hospital because he required the strict security of the facility while treating his mental illness. Defendant had been involuntarily committed for several years and periodically found incompetent to stand trial at the time that the Defendant’s father hired Attorney Patrick J. Noonan. Defendant was transferred to the Worcester Recovery Center but still involuntarily committed. Attorney Noonan met with the Defendant, his father, and his treatment team. Defendant was doing well and progressing with his treatment. The treatment team wanted to progress the Defendant into his next stage of treatment, which was supervised community access where the Defendant would have limited exposure to the outside world. However, the treatment team could not advance the Defendant to this next level of treatment because the Defendant was “held without bail” and his bail status precluding him from leaving the hospital. The criminal case was greatly interfering with the Defendant’s treatment. Attorney Noonan successfully moved the Court to change the Defendant’s bail status so he could progress to his next level of treatment and have supervised community access. Defendant did very well with his next level of treatment and he had no incidents. Attorney Noonan filed a Motion to Dismiss the case pursuant to G.L. c. 123, §16(f) because the Defendant has been held in the capacity of incompetent to stand trial for five (5) years, which is one-half of the maximum sentence of the most serious crime he was charged with: Assault with Intent to Murder. Attorney Noonan also argued that §16(f) grants the Court the discretion to dismiss such a case “in the interests of justice.” Attorney Noonan presented evidence from the Defendant’s treatment team stating how well the Defendant was doing and that the Defendant was temporarily scheduled to be discharged from the Hospital subject to an outpatient treatment plan. The Judge dismissed the case. With the criminal case dismissed, the Defendant has no restrictions on his ability to receive quality medical care.

October 23, 2018
Commonwealth v. L.P. – Waltham District Court

ATTORNEY GERALD J. NOONAN GETS CHARGE OF ASSAULT & BATTERY ON AN ELDERLY AND DISABLED PERSON DISMISSED AGAINST WOMAN WITH PRIOR CONVICTION FOR DOMESTIC VIOLENCE.

Defendant, a 54 year-old woman, was charged with Assault & Battery on Person over 60 or Disabled Person (G.L. c. 265, §13K) based on allegations that she assaulted her 79 year-old mother. The mother claimed that the Defendant was very aggressive, shoved her, and grabbed her by the hair. Defendant admitted to pushing her mother but did so only because her mother was in her face and arguing with her. In 2000, Defendant admitted to sufficient facts for a finding of guilt on a domestic violence charge.

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan convinced the District Attorney’s Office to dismiss the case. Attorney Noonan made arrangements for the victim-mother to speak to the District Attorney’s Office. The mother stated that she wanted the case against her daughter dismissed. Attorney Noonan provided the DA’s Office with 8 letters of people attesting to the Defendant’s character. Attorney provided letters from the Defendant’s other siblings stating that she was a loving and caring daughter to their mother. The DA agreed to dismiss the case.

September 28, 2018
Commonwealth v. G.D. – Stoughton District Court

ASSAULT & BATTERY CHARGE AGAINST ELECTRICIAN DISMISSED AT TRIAL OVER THE OBJECTION OF THE ALLEGED VICTIM AND THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE.

Client, an Electrician and Canton resident, was charged with Assault & Battery against his wife. Canton Police were dispatched to the parking lot of the client’s condominium in response to a 911 call made by his wife. Upon arrival, the wife, visibly upset at the scene, alleged that the client was angry with her and ripped her pocketbook out of her hands causing the contents of the pocketbook to be scattered about the parking lot. The client told police that they had a verbal argument but the police decided to arrest him and charge him with Assault & Battery.

Result: This case had a complicated history. The wife had taken out several restraining orders against the client where she made very serious allegations against him. Specifically, she claimed that the client had forced sex upon her, had threatened to kill her on multiple occasions, and even attempted to kill her. During the restraining order hearings, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan vigorously cross-examined the wife and locked her into many lies, false allegations, and contradictory statements, which he planned on using against her at the client’s criminal trial. For example, the wife claimed that the Defendant had murdered his first wife but Attorney Noonan had irrefutable evidence that his first wife died of cancer. The wife further alleged that the Defendant took out a life insurance policy on her and was motivated to kill her to collect millions of dollars but Attorney Noonan had a witness from the insurance company ready to testify that these allegations were untrue. The wife alleged that the client had taken to Florida to feed her to alligators but Attorney Noonan had pictures from their trip to Florida showing the wife posing with stuffed alligators while laughing and having a good time. On a prior occasion, the wife called the police to report that the client had weapons in his house that he planned to kill her with but Attorney called the investigating officer as a witness who was prepared to testify that he searched the client’s home and did not find any weapons. Attorney Noonan had evidence to prove that the wife told lie after lie after lie. On the day of trial, the wife claimed that she needed an interpreter in order to testify but there was no interpreter in court. After speaking to the wife, the prosecutor requested a continuance of the trial so they could arrange to have an interpreter at the next trial date. Attorney Noonan objected to a continuance of the trial, and moved for trial, arguing that the wife did not need an interpreter because she had previously testified, in the same court, in two different hearings, without an interpreter and she did not have any difficulty speaking or understanding English and she previously filed written Affidavits, in English, in her own writing without the assistance of anyone. The Judge found that the wife did not need an interpreter to testify. The wife was faced with an ultimatum: Either she testifies at trial right now or the case gets dismissed. The wife elected not to testify. Attorney Noonan moved to dismiss the case. The Judge dismissed the case over the objection of the prosecutor and the wife.

August 16, 2018
Commonwealth v. J.W. – West Roxbury District Court

PROSECUTION AGREES TO DROP DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CHARGE ON THE DAY OF TRIAL, AS ATTORNEY GERALD J. NOONAN HAD WITNESSES READY TO TESTIFY THAT THE VICTIM ATTACKED THE DEFENDANT AND HE ACTED IN SELF-DEFENSE.

Defendant was charged with Assault and Battery upon the adult daughter (alleged victim) of his longtime girlfriend. The alleged victim claimed that the Defendant punched her in the face, causing her to go to the emergency room where she was treated for injuries to her face. Defendant had a prior conviction for domestic violence.

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan had two witnesses prepared to testify that the victim was a violent person who attacked them both on prior occasions. Attorney Gerald J. Noonan had another witness prepared to testify that he witnessed the victim attack the Defendant on a prior occasion. Attorney Noonan was prepared to introduce ample evidence showing the victim’s violent character and prior acts of violence initiated by the victim. Attorney Noonan produced two witnesses who witnessed the actual incident between the Defendant and the victim. The two witnesses were prepared to testify that they observed the victim attack the Defendant and they saw the Defendant act in self-defense. On the day of trial, the prosecutor agreed to dismiss the charge after one-year, so long as the Defendant complied with conditions and stayed out of trouble. With this outcome, Defendant was not required to admit any guilt or wrongdoing.

August 15, 2018
Commonwealth v. J.T. – Brockton District Court

ASSAULT CHARGES DISMISSED AT CLERK’S HEARING IN FIGHT BETWEEN TWO MOTORISTS IN BROCKTON. CLIENT ACTED IN SELF-DEFENSE.

Brockton Police were dispatched to the scene of a motor vehicle accident and a fight in progress between the two drivers. Upon arrival, police spoke to the alleged victim who reported that the Defendant struck him in the forehead with a stick. Officers observed a visible injury to the victim’s forehead. Our client was charged with Assault & Battery and Assault & Batter with a Dangerous Weapon for allegedly striking the other man in the face with a wooden stick.

Result: At the Clerk’s Hearing, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan argued that his client acted in self-defense. Our client was parked in the street partially blocking traffic. The other party intentionally drove into the rear-end of our client’s vehicle. Both men exited their vehicles. Our client saw something in the other man’s hand, grew fearful, and grabbed a wooden stick out of his car in self-defense. Attorney Noonan produced an Affidavit of a witness who reported that he saw the other male driver yell, “You mother******, move your car or I’m going to run your ass over.” Our client moved his vehicle several feet but the other driver intentionally drove into the rear of our client’s vehicle. This witness stated that he saw a female in the other man’s car get out of the vehicle holding a plastic bag and proceeded to walk down the street. The witness reported that the other man was acting very aggressively. Another witness reported observing the two men grappling over the stick. This witness observed damage to our client’s car from being rear-ended by the other man. This witness observed that the other man’s car was parked very close to the rear of our client’s vehicle. After the hearing, no criminal complaint issued.

July 27, 2018
Commonwealth v. Ritch Dorce – Brockton District Court

IN A RARE CASE WHERE A DEFENDANT CONFESSES TO A CRIME ON SOCIAL MEDIA, ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN PROVES HIS CLIENT’S INNOCENCE AND WINS NOT GUILTY VERDICTS IN A DRIVE-BY SHOOTING.

On December 31, 2016, there was a New Year’s Eve party at a home on Orchard Ave. in Brockton. Police received several 911 calls reporting multiple gunshots fired at the home. One call reported that six gunshots were fired. One bullet traveled through a bedroom where a young child had been sleeping. Upon arrival the home, police interviewed several witnesses who lived in the home and were present for the party. Two of the witness immediately informed police that they had Snapchat videos posted by the person who committed the shooting. The Snapchat videos were posted from the account of Ritch Dorce, the Defendant in the case. One video physically showed Dorce present at the party. Another video showed Dorce sitting in the car, holding a firearm, and confessing the shooting. Dorce states: “I just got jumped, but, ayy, it’s OK. I just emptied all my shells. I ain’t got no more shells. But, ayy, I’m about to go back and get some more.” Dorce is then seen releasing the magazine to the firearm. Police interviewed approximately nine individuals who were present at the party. Some witnesses told police that Dorce got into a physical altercation with others at the party over marijuana. Some witnesses reported that Dorce was in the company of approximately 4-5 other males who were also involved in fights with others at the party. Some witnesses reported that Dorce, and the males with him, retrieved baseball bats and damaged a vehicle with bats. Some witnesses reported that Dorce was seen holding a taser. Some witnesses reported that Dorce threatened to come back and shoot the house up. Two witnesses stated that they were outside when they observed two vehicles drive by and fire shots at the house. One witness identified Dorce as sitting in one of the vehicles, which was involved in the shooting. Police obtained search warrants for Dorce’s Snapchat account, which confirmed that Dorce had in fact posted the incriminating videos on his Snapchat account. Police obtained search warrants for Dorce’s cell phone, GPS, and tower locations for his cell phone, which allowed police to locate Dorce and arrest him. Dorce agreed to videotape interview with police. In the interview, Dorce admitted that he posted the video but Dorce maintained that he was not the shooter. Dorce admitted that he got jumped at the party but he maintained that he was not the shooter. Dorce was charged with: 1) Carrying a Firearm without a License, 2) Unlawful Possession of Ammunition, 3) Assault with a Dangerous Weapon, 4) Malicious Destruction of Property, and 5) Malicious Damage to a Vehicle.

Result: At the trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan presented evidence that somebody else committed the shooting. In his interview, Dorce told police that he attended the party with three other males, one of whom was named Jeff. Dorce stated that he left the party and his cousin gave him a ride to his apartment in Brockton where he met his girlfriend and daughter. While he was in his Brockton home, Dorce received a phone call from Jeff who instructed Dorce to come outside and meet him in his car. While in the car, Jeff told Dorce that he (Jeff) “took care of it” because he didn’t want Dorce “to get his hands dirty.” Jeff then showed Dorce the handgun. At that point, Dorce foolishly decided to post a video on Snapchat of himself holding the handgun and taking credit for the shooting. Dorce stated that he posted the video to let people know not to mess with him. Attorney Noonan presented evidence with regards to Jeff’s true identity and the fact that police did not conduct any investigation into Jeff. Attorney Noonan had his private investigator testify that he was able to locate Jeff’s public Facebook page, which contained posts where Jeff appeared to feel guilty over the fact that Dorce was in jail for something he did not do and Jeff posted that he would take responsibility. The private investigator testified that he confronted Jeff with his posts but Jeff did not deny that he was involved in the shooting. Attorney Noonan argued that the police had evidence that would show Dorce’s whereabouts at the time of the shooting but the police did not bring this evidence to trial. Specifically, Dorce voluntarily handed over his cell phone to police and gave them the password to his phone. Dorce even asked the police to search his phone records, as the records would show that he was not involved in the shooting. Police obtained search warrants for Dorce’s cell phone, including his GPS and cell tower locations for the night of the shooting. Dorce’s cell phone records would show his whereabouts at the time of the shooting. If Dorce’s phone records showed that he was in the vicinity of the shooting at the time the shooting occurred, Attorney Noonan argued, the police would have brought that evidence to trial and showed it to the jury. Attorney Noonan argued that the police could have tested the fingerprints from the shell casings found at the scene in order to prove that Dorce handled the bullets that fired the gun. Attorney Noonan argued that Dorce’s Snapchat video was one of hundreds of videos where Dorce is playing a character as part of an online persona where he tried to look tough and sound tough. Dorce held himself out to be somebody he wasn’t. There was the real Dorce and his online persona. The Snapchat video was simply another example of Dorce trying to sound tough. After a three-day trial, the jury found that Mr. Dorce was not the shooter and they acquitted him of all charges except one charge. The jury found Dorce guilty of only holding the firearm in the Snapchat video but they found that Dorce was not the shooter and was not involved in the shooting. In a rare case where a Defendant confesses to committing a crime, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan proves his client’s innocence.

Media about the case:

A Snapchat split decision – Brockton ‘poser’ both guilty and acquitted.

Also:

Click HERE or on the image above to view larger.

February 20, 2018
Commonwealth v. K.T. – Somerville District Court

ASSAULT & BATTERY CHARGE AGAINST VIETNAMESE NAIL TECHNICIAN DISMISSED AT CLERK’S HEARING, AS ATTORNEY GERALD J. NOONAN PRESENTS EVIDENCE THAT HIS CLIENT ACTED IN SELF-DEFENSE

The Client is a 32 year-old Vietnamese woman with no criminal record. She works six days a week as a nail technician to support her family, which includes two children, one of whom is severely autistic. On the date of the incident, the client, her husband, and two children were sitting in their SUV in the parking lot of a Starbucks. Her husband, who was sitting in the driver’s seat, was programming an address into the GPS. Meanwhile, a female in a vehicle was waiting to use the client’s parking space. The female operator began to beep her horn and was motioning for the client to back out of the parking space. The client’s severely autistic son became upset, as the other woman was beeping of the horn. The client rolled down the window and told the female to wait but the other female yelled that to the client that she was taking up two parking spaces. The client exited her vehicle and approached the other female and a heated argument ensued. The client claims that the other female made a racial slur, saying: “Go back to where you came from!” The verbal argument turned physical. The female told police that the client punched her, grabbed her, and pulled her. The officer observed that the female was bleeding and had swelling and redness under her left eye. However, the female did admit to the police officer that there was mutual fighting between her and the client. The officer then spoke to the client who stated that the female kicked her in the leg. The officer observed bruises to the client’s leg. The officer charged our client with Assault and Battery for having punched the other female in the face.

Result: At the Clerk Magistrate Hearing, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan argued that his client acted in self-defense when she struck the other female. The police was vague as to who struck who first. The police report did not contain any concrete evidence showing that the client struck first. The police report did give the impression that the fighting was mutual. Attorney Noonan pointed out that the officer also charged the other female with Assault & Battery with a Dangerous Weapon for having kicked the client with her shoe. After the hearing, the Clerk Magistrate declined to issue the complaint against our client.

February 10, 2018
Stonehill College vs. Student

NO CRIMINAL CHARGES OR DISCIPLINARY ACTION AGAINST STONEHILL COLLEGE STUDENT FOR PUNCHING ANOTHER STUDENT IN THE FACE RESULTING IN STITCHES AND MEDICAL TREATMENT

Client was a junior at Stonehill College in Easton, MA. One night, he was attending an on-campus party when another male student approached him and told him that he had made advances on the client’s girlfriend. This entire incident was being video recorded on another student’s phone. For his advances on the client’s girlfriend, the male student offered to let the client punch him in the face. The Defendant declined the invitation. The male student then encouraged the client to punch him in the face. At the male student’s insistence, the client punched him in the face just one time. The client considered the matter resolved by one punch. Unfortunately, the male student began to bleed profusely from his head, which required medical treatment and numerous stitches. For some reason, the male student decided to report the incident to campus police. As a result, the school administration brought charges against the client for Assault & Battery pursuant to the school’s code of conduct. The client was facing very serious consequences, which included expulsion and termination from the school.

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan prepared the client for a Hearing before the school administration for his violation of the school’s code of conduct. It was argued that the client did not commit an Assault and Battery because, like the criminal offense of Assault & Battery, the battery (or intentional touching) must be done without the other party’s consent. Here, the battery was consensual because the victim encouraged and insisted that the client punch him in the face. Based on the video, it was clear that the client had no intention to strike the victim and he even declined the victim’s invitation to punch him in the face. Although the client’s conduct may have been improper, he did not commit any criminal offense. After a hearing, the school decided not to expel or terminate the client from the school and they allowed him to graduate.

September 13, 2017
Plaintiff v. Client – Quincy District Court West Roxbury District Court

IN 2013, CLIENT’S EX-GIRLFRIEND OBTAINED A YEAR LONG RESTRAINING ORDER AGAINST HIM FOR HARASSMENT. IN 2017, CLIENT’S EX-GIRLFRIEND SOUGHT A PERMANENT RESTRAINING ORDER ALLEGING MORE HARASSMENT BUT ATTORNEY GERALD J. NOONAN GETS THE RESTRAINING ORDER VACATED

In 2013, Client had a bad break up with a woman he had been dating for a few months. After the break-up, the woman obtained a restraining order against the defendant for harassment. After a hearing in which the woman presented evidence, the judge found evidence of harassment and issued a restraining order against the defendant for one year to end in 2014. After one year, the woman did not seek to extend the restraining order and it was terminated. In 2017, the woman sought a permanent restraining order against the defendant. The woman wrote a very lengthy affidavit detailing many instances of alleged harassment dating back to 2013.

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan convinced the judge to vacate the permanent restraining order after he discredited many of the allegations in the woman’s new affidavit. In her new affidavit, the woman alleged that, back in 2013, the defendant tried running her over in his car. Attorney Noonan pointed out that the woman never mentioned this incident in her prior restraining order and she is now bringing this up for the first time 4 years later. In her new affidavit, the woman alleged that the defendant threatened to disseminate a nude picture of her to her employer and others. Attorney Noonan pointed out that the woman took this nude picture of herself and gave it to the defendant when they were dating. Attorney Noonan pointed out that the defendant never disseminated this picture to anyone. Finally, in her new affidavit, the woman alleged that the defendant mailed her a threatening letter. Attorney Noonan pointed out that the letter was unsigned and there was no proof that the letter was written by the defendant. After hearing, the judge vacated the permanent restraining order.

August 18, 2017
Commonwealth v. D.V. – New Bedford District Court

DA’S OFFICE ARGUES THAT DEFENDANT IS TOO DANGEROUS TO RELEASE AND SEEKS TO HOLD HIM IN JAIL AS HE AWAITS TRIAL BUT ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN WINS HIS CLIENT’S RELEASE

Client, a 27 year-old lifelong resident of New Bedford, was arrested and charged with firearms offenses and evading police. At his arraignment, the DA’s Office moved the court to hold the Defendant in the House of Correction for 120 days or until his trial because the Commonwealth felt he was too dangerous to release. Fairhaven Police were called to the VWF for reports of an altercation involving members of a gang who were possibly armed with guns. When police arrived, Defendant fled the scene in his vehicle. Additional police units were dispatched to apprehend the fleeing Defendant. Eventually, police stopped the vehicle and ordered all the occupants out at gun point. Defendant admitted that he had a firearm in the glove compartment. Defendant was charged with Carrying a Firearm without a License (which carries a minimum mandatory jail sentence of 18 months), Improper Storage of a Firearm, and Failure to Stop for Police.

Result: As the client was sitting in jail, client’s mother contacted Attorney Patrick J. Noonan to get her son out of jail. At a hearing to determine whether the Defendant was too dangerous to release, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan introduced evidence and convinced the judge that the Defendant did not pose a danger to the public. Attorney Noonan introduced evidence that the Defendant is a lifelong resident of New Bedford, is presently employed in New Bedford, has strong roots in the community, has family in New Bedford, and did not pose of flight risk. In addition, Attorney Noonan challenged the evidence presented by the Commonwealth that his client was involved in a physical altercation at the VWF, that his client was armed during the altercation, and that his client was a member of a gang. Attorney Noonan pointed out that altercation at the VFW was purely verbal and that no witnesses reported seeing any sort of fight. Also, nobody identified the Defendant as being involved in the altercation. Lastly, there was only one witness who reported that the parties at the VWF were armed and gang members and this lone witness was never identified. The judge released the Defendant on a GPS device and did not impose any bail.

April 18, 2017
Commonwealth v. A.S. – Brockton District Court

BRIDGEWATER STATE UNIVERSITY STUDENT CHARGED WITH PUNCHING A FEMALE STUDENT IN THE FACE AT A PARTY WILL HAVE NO CRIMINAL RECORD SO LONG AS HE STAYS OUT OF TROUBLE FOR ONE-YEAR.

According to the Police Report, the Client, a student at Bridgewater State University, attended an off-campus party that was thrown by other students who attended the university. The alleged victim, a female BSU student, resided at the house where the off-campus party was held. She stated that the Defendant showed up the party, uninvited, and created a disturbance by arguing with the alleged victim and her roommates. The Defendant was asked to leave but he refused. He allegedly started to punch the walls and doors and he was kicked out of the house by other party-goers. As he was being kicked out of the party, the Defendant allegedly punched the female-victim in the face knocking her to the ground and causing her to have a swollen cheekbone. The Defendant was charged with Assault & Battery for punching the female victim in the face.

Result: At a Clerk-Magistrate’s Hearing, the female victim attended the hearing along with her father and they were both very upset about what happened. Attorney Gerald J. Noonan mediated the case by engaging in a discussion with all parties including: the alleged victim, her father, members of his client’s family, and the police department. After engaging in a constructive dialogue with all parties and getting input from everyone, all parties came to an agreement that the criminal complaint would be dismissed after one-year so long as the Client stayed out of trouble. The Client, now a senior at Salem State University and stand-out football player, will have no criminal record so long as he stays out of trouble. This was a significant victory because the Client, at this point in life, who will soon be graduating from college and entering the work force, will not have a criminal record, as he sets out to start his career.

March 27, 2017
Commonwealth v. M.D. – Brockton District Court

Docket No.: 1315 CR 5197

CHARGES AGAINST BROCKTON MAN FOR HITTING VICTIM IN THE HEAD WITH A BASEBALL BAT ARE DISMISSED AS THE TRIAL WAS UNDERWAY.

On 09/09/13, Brockton Police were called to Panorama Pizza in Brockton for a report of a male bleeding profusely from his head after being struck in the head with a baseball bat. Upon arrival, police observed trails of blood in the parking lot and large pools of blood inside Panorama Pizza. The Defendant, a 29 year-old pizza delivery man, admitted to police that he struck the victim in the head with a baseball bat but that it was in self-defense. Due to the severity of the head injury and the amount of blood loss, the victim was taken by helicopter to the hospital in Boston where he stayed for almost one week.

The Defendant was charged with Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon (G.L. c. 265, §15A), a felony offense punishable up to 10 years in state prison.

The Noonan Defense Team thoroughly prepared the case for trial where they intended to assert that the Defendant was justified in using deadly force in self-defense. The Defendant and the victim were employees at Panorama Pizza in Brockton. The Noonan Defense Team interviewed the other employees at the pizza shop and intended to have all three employees testify at trial. At the trial, the Commonwealth moved to introduce a surveillance video, which showed the Defendant strike the victim in the head with the baseball bat.

Attorney Patrick J. Noonan sought to introduce the following evidence at trial: The pizza shop employees would testify that the victim had a reputation for being a violent and quarrelsome person. The employees would testify that the victim would show up to the pizza shop on a regular basis highly intoxicated and would act aggressively toward the employees. The employees would testify to approximately 10 instances where the victim would threaten to cause bodily harm to the Defendant. The employees would testify to an incident where the victim threatened a police officer and was almost arrested. Finally, the employees would testify to an incident that occurred at 8:00 p.m. just one hour before the assault in question where the victim showed up to the pizza shop highly intoxicated and made threats to the manager and the Defendant. Despite the efforts of the manager and the Defendant, the victim refused to leave and go home. The victim remained outside the pizza shop where he proceeded to stare at the Defendant in a threatening manner. At the top of his lungs, the victim screamed threats to cause bodily harm to the Defendant. The victim leaned against the Defendant’s car and waited for him to come outside knowing that the Defendant would eventually have to go to his car to deliver pizzas. Fearing that the victim would physically attack him, the Defendant called the police to have the victim removed from the premises. The police arrived and removed the victim from the premises.

One hour after being removed from the premises by the police, the victim returned to the pizza shop where he confronted the Defendant in the parking lot. As the Defendant was exiting his car, he observed the victim quickly approaching him in an aggressive manner. Fearing that the victim was about to attack him, the Defendant grabbed a miniature-sized baseball bat that he kept in his car for protection. The victim got in the Defendant’s face and made threats to “kill him.” Prior to using the bat in self-defense, the Defendant pushed the victim back and yelled for him to “back up” but the victim continued with his threats to kill him. With no other alternative and having a legitimate fear that the victim would seriously harm him, the Defendant struck the victim in the head with the baseball bat. The victim was completely unfazed by the blow to the head and continued to pursue the Defendant who then ran inside the pizza shop for safety.

Attorney Patrick J. Noonan intended to call an expert witness in Toxicology and Physiology. The expert witness would testify that the victim had a blood alcohol level of 0.24 when he showed up to the pizza shop at 8:00 p.m. and that the victim had a blood alcohol level of 0.22 when he showed up an hour later and confronted the Defendant in the parking lot. The expert witness would also testify as to the signs and symptoms that a person exhibits in this state of intoxication, which include: exaggerated emotional states (such as rage), emotional instability, loss of critical judgment, and increased pain threshold.

At the start of the trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan argued a Motion in Limine to introduce evidence of the victim’s violent character and to introduce six specific instances of violence committed by the victim. The DA objected and moved to exclude each of the six instances of violence committed by the victim. After a hearing, the trial judge ruled that Attorney Noonan could introduce 4 of the 6 instances of violence committed by the victim. In addition, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan moved to introduce testimony from his expert as to the level of the victim’s intoxication along with the mental state and behavior associated with such a high level of intoxication. Again, the DA objected and moved to exclude the expert from testifying. After a hearing, the trial judge ruled that Attorney Noonan could introduce the proposed testimony from his expert.

Result: After the hearing in which the trial judge ruled that Attorney Patrick J. Noonan could introduce evidence of the victim’s violent character, the four specific instances of violence committed by the victim, and the expert testimony as to the victim’s high level of intoxication, the DA moved to dismiss the case before the jury was empaneled.

“Man beaten with baseball bat outside Brockton pizza shop.” http://www.wcvb.com/article/man-beaten-with-baseball-bat-outside-brockton-pizza-shop/8188389

March 16, 2017
Commonwealth v. R.P. – Taunton District Court

CHARGES DISMISSED AT TRIAL AS ATTORNEY GERALD J. NOONAN MOVES THE COURT TO HAVE THE ALLEGED VICTIM EVALUATED FOR A FIFTH AMENDMENT PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION.

Defendant was arrested for strangling or suffocating his mother and violently assaulting her with a dangerous weapon. Defendant had a lengthy history of psychiatric hospitalizations and severe mental health disorders. At his arraignment, Defendant was involuntarily committed to a mental health facility for a competency and criminal responsibility evaluation. The forensic evaluator determined that the Defendant was competent to stand trial. The forensic evaluator had a conflicting opinion as to whether the Defendant was criminally responsible for his actions or whether he lacked criminal responsibility for his actions due to his mental illness. As a result, the issue of criminal responsibility was an uncertainty heading into trial.

Result: Through his pretrial investigation, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan discovered evidence that the alleged victim may have committed a crime during the alleged incident. On the day of trial, the alleged victim appeared ready to testify against the Defendant. Attorney Gerald J. Noonan moved the Court to appoint an Attorney to evaluate the alleged victim to see if she had a Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. That is, to see whether the alleged victim would incriminate herself if she were to testify against the Defendant. After evaluating the alleged victim, the Attorney reported to the court that the alleged victim had a valid Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. As a result, the alleged victim invoked her Fifth Amendment privilege and decided not to testify against the Defendant. Attorney Gerald J. Noonan moved to dismiss the case arguing that the Commonwealth could not prove its case without the testimony of the alleged victim.

February 21, 2017
Commonwealth v. J.N. – Hingham District Court

DOMESTIC ASSAULT & BATTERY CHARGE AGAINST MBTA WORKER DISMISSED AT TRIAL.

Rockland Police were dispatched to a residence in Rockland in response to a 911 call from the Defendant’s girlfriend who reported that her boyfriend, the Defendant, had hit her in the face with an open hand several times. She alleged that the Defendant made vulgar statements toward her. Prior to calling 911, Defendant allegedly pounded his fist against the door to the home scaring the girlfriend and her 15 year-old daughter. When she was calling 911, Defendant made threatening statements to her. The girlfriend remained on the phone with 911 until police arrived. When police arrived, the girlfriend had locked herself inside her home and locked the Defendant out of the house. At the scene, the officer observed redness to the left side of the girlfriend’s face consistent with being recently struck in the face. When police arrived, Defendant was outside the home in the driveway. After speaking to the girlfriend, police arrested the Defendant who made no statements to police. After his arrest, the girlfriend made a written statement to the police regarding the abuse and later obtained an Abuse Prevention Restraining Order against the Defendant.

Attorney Gerald J. Noonan prepared the case for trial. Attorney Noonan obtained a transcript of the restraining order hearing where the girlfriend stated, under oath, that the Defendant did not hit her. In addition, Attorney Noonan obtained, by court order, statements the girlfriend made to the DA’s Office in which she stated, again, that the Defendant did not hit her.

Result: On the date of trial, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan was ready to try the case and ready to exclude the 911 call from evidence along with other hearsay statements made by the girlfriend. In addition, Attorney Noonan was ready to introduce statements made by the girlfriend in which she stated that the Defendant did not hit her. On the day of trial, the DA moved to dismiss.

January 19, 2017
Commonwealth v. C.S. – Brockton District Court

ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN GETS AGGRAVATED FELONY DISMISSED AGAINST HIS CLIENT FOR WHOOPING HIS 6 YEAR-OLD STEP-SON WITH A BELT – AND SAVES HIS CLIENT FROM BEING DEPORTED FROM U.S.

Defendant was charged with an aggravated felony. The allegations were that the Defendant physically abused his 6 year-old step-son with a belt. Teachers noticed that the child had bruises and marks on his arm. When asked about the injuries, the child stated that his step-father whooped him with a belt. The child stated that his step-father was about to whoop him on the butt with a belt but he (child) was struck on the arm when he tried to block the belt from hitting his butt. The school took pictures of the child’s left arm, which had marks and bruises on it. Defendant admitted to hitting his step-son with the belt but only did so to discipline the child for his misbehavior.

From the very beginning of the case, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan asserted the defense of parental privilege, a newly recognized defense, and argued that his client was justified in using reasonable force to discipline his step-son.

In Commonwealth v. Dorvil, 472 Mass. 1 (2015), the Supreme Judicial Court recognized parental privilege as a new defense. It states that: a parent may not be criminally liable for the use of force against a minor in his care if the force used: (1) is reasonable, (2) is reasonably related to the purpose of “safeguarding or promoting the welfare of the minor,” including the punishment of the minor’s misconduct, and (3) “neither causes, nor creates a substantial risk of causing, physical harm (beyond fleeting pain or minor, transient marks), gross degradation, or severe mental distress.”

At trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan was prepared to prove that his client’s physical discipline of his step-son was reasonable and met the criteria of Dorvil. First, Attorney Noonan sought to show that the physical discipline was justified to punish the child’s misbehavior. The child had been misbehaving in school, repeatedly, and his misbehavior was escalating. At first, Defendant and his wife did not use any force to discipline the child and instead disciplined the child in other ways but the child continued to misbehave. After exhausting all other forms of discipline, Defendant used force. Second, Attorney Noonan sought to show that the force used was reasonable. Defendant did not pull down the child’s pants with the intent to spank him on his bare-bottom. Nor did the Defendant whoop him repeatedly with the belt. Nor did the Defendant use excessive force. Instead, Defendant lightly spanked the child with the belt at least two times. Third, Attorney Noonan sought to show that the whooping did not cause or create a substantial risk of causing physical harm (beyond fleeting pain or minor, transient marks). Specifically, the photos showed light, faint, and small bruises to the child’s arm, which fully healed after several days. Thus, the physical harm did not extend beyond fleeting pain or minor, transient marks. Lastly, Attorney Noonan sought to show that the force did not cause or create severe mental distress. Specifically, in counseling sessions (subsequent to the incident), the child was found to be happy, healthy, and in no distress. In fact, the child told counselors that he loved his step-father and exhibited great affection for this step-father.

On the day of trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan consulted with the District Attorney as to whether the child was competent to testify – and whether the child would be traumatized or harmed should he be forced to testify against his step-father – and whether it was in child’s best interest to testify against his step-father. Attorney Noonan and the DA interviewed the child to address these and other issues. After interviewing the child, the DA decided to dismiss the case.

Defendant was not a U.S. citizen. Since this was an aggravated felony, Defendant faced deportation if convicted.  Immigration and Nationality Act § 237(a)(2)(A)(iii) provides that “any alien who is convicted of an aggravated felony at any time after admission is deportable.” The consequences of a conviction would be devastating for the Defendant. If convicted, Defendant may be detained without bond and will be deported as expeditiously as possible. An aggravated felon is “conclusively presumed” to be deportable and is also rendered ineligible for virtually all forms of relief from removal. A person deported as an aggravated felon may be banned from the U.S. for life.

ResultAttorney Patrick J. Noonan was able to get the aggravated felony dismissed saving his client from the very real prospect of being deported from the U.S.

September 19, 2016
Commonwealth v. O.M. – Brockton District Court

CHARGES OF ASSAULTING A POLICE OFFICER AND RESISTING ARREST AGAINST U.S. MARINE CORPS RECRUIT TO BE DISMISSED PRIOR TO ARRAIGNMENT IN SIX MONTHS IF CLIENT COMPLETES COUNSELING

Police were called to a bar for a report of a drunk and disorderly patron. When the police arrived, they found the defendant sitting outside, visibly intoxicated. Police placed the defendant in protective custody pursuant to G.L. c. 111B, §8. Defendant resisted when police tried to handcuff him. Defendant was yelling and swearing and causing a scene when officers placed him under arrest. During transport to the police station, Defendant was kicking the backseat of the police cruiser. It took three officers to escort the Defendant to his holding cell. In the holding cell, Defendant attacked one officer severely bruising his arm and the officer was unable to work for several days. Police tried to move the Defendant to another holding cell when he bit another officer on the knee. Police filed three criminal complaints for Disorderly Conduct, Resisting Arrest, and Assault & Battery on a Police Officer. Prior to this incident, client was close to finishing the process of enlisting in the U.S. Marine Corps.

Result: At a Clerk Magistrate Hearing, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan presented compelling evidence on behalf on his client. First, Attorney Noonan presented a letter from the client’s Marine Corps. Recruiter. In the letter, the Recruiter stated that he was aware of the pending charges and would continue with the client’s enlistment should his case resolve favorably. Attorney Noonan had his client write letters of apology to all the police officers. The Clerk-Magistrate accepted Attorney Noonan’s proposal to hold the matter open for six months with the condition that his client undergo treatment with a substance abuse counselor. If the client successfully completes his substance abuse treatment than all criminal charges will be dismissed in six months and, hopefully, the client will be able to enlist in the Marine Corps.

September 8, 2016
Commonwealth v. S.O. – Dedham District Court

DOMESTIC ASSAULT & BATTERY CHARGE AGAINST ELDERLY, DISABLED MAN DISMISSED BY COMMONWEALTH DURING TRIAL

Client, 72-year-old man, was in a relationship with his girlfriend for 40 years. On one night, the client’s girlfriend called 911 and reported that she was physically assaulted by her boyfriend. She told police that the client had sucker-punched her in the face several times. She alleged that she locked herself in her bedroom after being chased by the client. She claimed that the client was banging on her bedroom door with a 6-foot wooden club. She took out a restraining order in which she alleged that she was afraid that the defendant would beat her to death with the wooden club. Prior to the trial, the girlfriend provided the District Attorney with photos showing scratches and marks to her face, as well as damage to her bedroom door.

Result: Prior to trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan discovered that the girlfriend was recently charged with Assault with a Dangerous Weapon stemming from an incident in which she threw hot coffee at two Dunkin Donut employees. The Commonwealth dismissed this charge against the girlfriend. In a prior hearing, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan asked the girlfriend if she threw the hot coffee at the employees and she vehemently denied doing so. At the start of the trial, Attorney Noonan filed a Motion in Limine to admit evidence of the hot coffee incident. Attorney Noonan argued that the girlfriend’s violent actions in throwing the hot coffee at the unsuspecting employees were relevant to show that she was the first aggressor and that she attacked the client. After a hearing, the judge allowed Attorney Noonan’s Motion. Anticipating that the girlfriend would once again deny throwing the hot coffee, Attorney Noonan had a witness ready to testify that he was standing in line and saw her throw the hot coffee at the two employees. The Judge allowed Attorney Noonan to call this witness and have him testify to the hot coffee incident. As we were getting ready to empanel a jury, the girlfriend opted not to take the witness stand and she invoked her Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. As a result, the Commonwealth had to dismiss the case.

July 11, 2016
Commonwealth v. A Juvenile

ASSAULT & BATTERY: DISMISSED AT TRIAL (lack of evidence)
WITNESS INTIMIDATION: DISMISSED AT TRIAL (lack of evidence)

Client was a junior in high school. A female student reported to the police that she had been receiving sexually charged and sexually inappropriate text messages from the client. The female students provided the sexually explicit text messages to the police. The client was not charged in connection with the text messages but police informed him that he was the prime suspect. The client denied the allegations and protested, repeatedly, that he did not send the text messages.

The police instructed the client to have no contact with the female student or else he would be charged with Intimidation of a Witness. Several weeks later, the female student reported to the police that the client had been staring at her in school and would strike her with his arm, shoulder, and backpack when passing her in the school hallway. The police officer pulled video footage from the hallway and, based on the officer’s opinion, the video showed the client intentionally striking the female student with his backpack. Based on the physical contact in the hallway, the police charged the Client with Assault & Battery. In addition, the police charged the Client with Witness Intimidation for staring and striking the female in the hallway on several different occasions.

Result: In conducting his pre-trial investigation, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan obtained evidence that another student (not the client) was the person that sent the sexually inappropriate text messages to the female student. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan obtained text messages in which this other student admitted to sending the sexually inappropriate text messages to the female student. In his police report, the officer states that he paused the video on a specific minute and second where the client’s backpack made physical contact with the female’s left shoulder. Attorney Noonan blew up a picture of the minute and second where the officer claims he saw physical contact. In Attorney Noonan’s opinion, the image did not show any physical contact. If there was any contact, it was a slight brush and purely incidental as a result of students navigating their way to class in a crowded, narrow hallway. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan extracted and developed large photographs breaking down the sequence and movements of the client and the female student in the hallway. These images showed that the female student displayed absolutely no physical or emotional reaction in response to the so-called contact. On the day of trial, the District Attorney moved to dismiss the criminal complaints due to the mountain of evidence showing that the client did not commit any criminal offenses.

June 9, 2016
Commonwealth v. B.H. – New Bedford District Court

ASSAULT & BATTERY: DISMISSED / RELEASED FROM JAIL
A & B with DANGEROUS WEAPON: DISMISSED / RELEASED FROM JAIL
DESTRUCTION OF PROPERTY: DISMISSED / RELEASED FROM JAIL

Defendant’s girlfriend called 911 to report that she had been assaulted by the Defendant and she was bleeding. The girlfriend told police that the Defendant started a verbal argument and he pushed her into a fish-tank causing the glass from the fish-tank to shatter. The girlfriend told police that pieces of the shattered glass were lodged in her body. She attempted to call 911 but the Defendant threw her cell phone to the ground and fled the apartment. Police observed the Defendant running in the area and they arrested him. Defendant was charged with Assault & Battery, Assault & Battery with a Dangerous Weapon, and Malicious Destruction of Property. Defendant was arraigned on these charges and released on personal recognizance.

While his case was pending, Defendant was arrested and charged with Assault & Battery (subsequent offense) and Malicious Destruction of Property stemming from a completely separate incident with his family. Police were dispatched to the residence of the Defendant’s parents for an Assault & Battery. Upon arrival, Defendant’s brother told police that the Defendant had punched him in the face. Police observed redness and swelling to the brother’s face. Defendant’s mother told police that the Defendant attacked her by grabbing her hair and attempting to push her down. Defendant’s father told police that the Defendant wrestled him to the ground. Police observed that the father had redness to his back and neck. The new offenses were eventually dismissed for lack of prosecution.

Because the Defendant committed these new offenses while his previous case was pending, the Commonwealth moved to revoke the Defendant’s bail. On 04/20/16, the Court revoked the Defendant’s bail and the Defendant was placed in custody. Defendant was facing 90 days in the house of correction because his bail was revoked by virtue of the new offenses.

Result: Defendant retained Attorney Gerald J. Noonan while he was in custody at the house of correction. Immediately, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan marked the original case for trial. Attorney Gerald J. Noonan obtained exculpatory text messages sent to the Defendant’s cell phone by his ex-girlfriend, the alleged victim – as well as exculpatory voice mails left on the Defendant’s cell phone by the alleged victim. Attorney Gerald J. Noonan located a witness who had been in a relationship with the alleged victim. This witness was willing to testify that the alleged victim had made threats to falsely accuse of him of crimes if she didn’t receive certain things in return from the witness. That is, if the witness did not comply with her demands, she would call the police and falsely accuse him of a crime. This was precisely the situation in the Defendant’s case. In the Defendant’s case, the alleged victim called 911 and falsely accused the Defendant of these crimes because the Defendant was unwilling to give in to the alleged victim’s demands. The evidence obtained by Attorney Gerald J. Noonan presented Fifth Amendment issues for the alleged victim because she would have incriminated herself when testifying against the Defendant at trial. On the day of trial, all criminal charges were dismissed and the Defendant was released from custody.

June 9, 2016
Commonwealth v. M.M. – Brockton District Court

STABBING CASE: DISMISSED AT TRIAL

Brockton Police were dispatched to the emergency room at the Good Samaritan Hospital for a report of a patient-victim who had been stabbed. Upon arrival, police spoke to the alleged victim. The alleged victim stated that he attended a family party at a residence in Brockton. The alleged victim and members of the party were hanging out in the street outside the party. The alleged victim reported that he saw a few guys fighting in the street and he went over to break it up. One of the male parties involved in the fight confronted the alleged victim and threatened him. The male party left the scene. Minutes later, the male party returned to the scene and again confronted the alleged victim by getting in his face. The male party then stabbed the alleged victim and fled the scene. The alleged victim gave a physical description of the male suspect who stabbed him. Police spoke to a witness of the stabbing who happened to be a friend of the alleged victim. The witness told police that he witnessed the male party stab the alleged victim. The witness told police that the suspect was the Defendant. The witness knew the Defendant because the Defendant lived down the street from the witness. The witness provided police with the suspect’s name and address. Police went to the Defendant’s residence where they observed people in the street arguing about the stabbing. Police observed that the Defendant matched the description given to police by the alleged victim. After briefly speaking with the Defendant, police placed him under arrest for Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon to wit: knife.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan prepared the case for trial. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan asserted that the Defendant acted in self-defense. The Defendant told police that he had been jumped by five guys. The Defendant showed police bruises and abrasions that he sustained to his back, which were consistent with the Defendant being the victim of an attack. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan subpoenaed the emergency physician who treated the alleged victim. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan was prepared to present medical evidence showing that the alleged victim’s injuries were not consistent with the accounts given by the alleged victim and the witness. In addition, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan was prepared to present medical evidence showing that the alleged victim’s injuries were not consistent with a deliberate stabbing based upon the depth, size, and nature of the stab wound. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan also subpoenaed the emergency room nurse. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan was prepared to introduce evidence that the emergency room nurse called Brockton Police because the alleged victim and his friends were being loud and causing a disturbance in the waiting area. Specifically, the emergency room nurse heard the alleged victim and his crew talk about “strapping up” and going out to get the Defendant. This evidence tended to show that the alleged victim and his crew were the aggressors in the conflict and they were acting violent. The first time the case was scheduled for trial, the Commonwealth requested a continuance over the Defendant’s objection. On the second trial date, the criminal charge was dismissed.

May 24, 2016
Commonwealth v. K.W. – New Bedford District Court

ASSAULT & BATTERY: PRETRIAL PROBATION
DISORDERLY CONDUCT: PRETRIAL PROBATION

Police at UMASS-Dartmouth were on patrol when they heard yelling and observed a fight in progress outside a college apartment. The fight involved a large number of people. Immediately, an officer attempted to stop the fight by identifying himself as a police officer and ordering the parties to stop. Upon his command, the majority of the crowd dispersed and ran away. Despite his commands, the officer observed two males on top of a male victim and they were punching and kicking the victim. The two male aggressors and the male victim all ran away, as the officer approached them. Officers pursued the males in a foot chase. Officers eventually apprehended the Defendant but were unable to catch the other parties. At the station, Defendant admitted to consuming 6-8 beers. Officers observed blood and markings on the Defendant’s knuckles. Defendant told police that he observed a fight break out involving his friend. Defendant stated that he intervened to break up the fight and assist his friend. Defendant admitted to throwing punches and hitting the male victim. Defendant was immediately suspended from UMASS-Dartmouth.

Result: After his arraignment, Defendant’s parents contacted Attorney Gerald J. Noonan. Attorney Gerald J. Noonan amassed a wealth of evidence attesting to his client’s outstanding character and submitted it to the District Attorney’s Office requesting that the DA’s Office place his client on Pretrial Probation. Attorney Gerald J. Noonan submitted the Defendant’s college transcripts showing that he was an Honor Student. Attorney Noonan submitted a glowing letter of recommendation from the Defendant’s College Football Coach. In addition, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan discovered evidence showing that his client never kicked the male victim during the fight. Attorney Gerald J. Noonan worked with the Campus Police and other school officials and they supported Attorney Noonan’s request for Pretrial Probation. At his first court appearance, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan reached an agreement with the Commonwealth that the criminal charges would be dismissed upon the Defendant’s completion of community service. This was a significant victory, which allowed the Defendant to return to school the following semester and complete his college education. With this disposition, the Defendant did not have to admit guilt and the charges will be dismissed outright so long as he completes his community service.

April 14, 2016
Commonwealth v. W.E. – Brockton District Court

ASSAULT & BATTERY: DISMISSED

Police were dispatched in response to a 911 in which the Defendant’s wife stated that the Defendant was intoxicated and had struck her on the side of the face. She was in fear of the Defendant. Upon arrival, she told police that the Defendant struck her on the right side of the face with an open hand. Defendant denied hitting his wife and told the police that his wife actually hit him.

Result: On the day of trial, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan argued a Motion to Dismiss the criminal complaint on the basis that the Defendant’s wife would be asserting her marital privilege not to testify against the Defendant, and that the Commonwealth had no other evidence upon which to try and convict the Defendant. Attorney Gerald J. Noonan’s Motion to Dismiss was allowed and the criminal charge was dismissed against his client, a computer technician with no prior criminal record.

April 8, 2016
L.M. v. S.O. – Dedham District Court

209A RESTRAINING ORDER: VACATED

The alleged victim (girlfriend) called 911 from her locked bedroom and reported that her boyfriend had just assaulted her. She claimed that the Defendant was banging on her bedroom door with a wooden staff and she was afraid that he may kill her. Upon arrival, the alleged victim reported that the Defendant has a history of mental illness and was experiencing a manic episode. She claimed that the Defendant became violent and aggressive. She claimed that the Defendant sucker punched her in the face 4 times. She ran to her bedroom to get away from him. Defendant chased her to her bedroom. She was trying to close the bedroom door but the Defendant was trying to force is way in. She was able to close the bedroom door and lock it. She called the police from her bedroom at which time the Defendant was banging on her bedroom door with a wooden staff. Police observed that the alleged victim has scratches on her face, that she was bleeding from her face, that her ear-ring had been ripped, and that she was bleeding from the ear. Defendant was charged with Assault & Battery. Later that afternoon, the alleged victim obtained an emergency abuse prevention restraining order against the Defendant.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan requested a two-party hearing to challenge the extension of the 209A abuse prevention restraining order. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan cross-examined the alleged victim and showed that she assaulted and battered the Defendant, not the other way around. She testified that she pushed the Defendant to the ground in his bedroom. She testified that she pushed the Defendant to the ground, a second time, in the hallway to her bedroom. Attorney Noonan alleged that she had beaten the Defendant while he was on the ground with a wooden staff and a long cat scratcher. Attorney Noonan introduced photographs showing that the Defendant sustained extensive physical injuries in the attack. The photos showed that the Defendant had very large, sizeable bruises across his lower back, along his left hip, and distinct contusions to the chest, stomach, and elbows, and that he was bleeding extensively from his foot. Attorney Noonan argued that the Defendant’s injuries were consistent with him being the victim of a violent assault. As a result of the injuries he sustained in the assault, Defendant had to go to the emergency room by ambulance. Attorney Noonan introduced evidence that the Defendant is 72 years-old and suffers from many serious physical and medical conditions, such as: arteriovenous malformation in the brain, cardiac disease, kidney insufficiency, aortic aneurysm, hypertension, and anemia. Attorney Noonan argued that the Defendant was physically and medically incapable of violently assaulting the alleged victim, as she described. Attorney Noonan showed that the alleged victim was currently on probation for assaulting two victims with hot coffee. At the conclusion of the hearing, the judge terminated the 209A Abuse Prevention Order.

April 5, 2016
Commonwealth v. Juvenile – Dedham Juvenile Court

ASSAULT: DISMISSED

An eighth grade student (alleged victim) reported to police that he was threatened by four males and was fearful that they would kill him. The alleged victim reported that he was walking home from school when he was approached by a vehicle with four males inside. The males were yelling at him from the vehicle. The alleged victim stated that two of the males got out of the vehicle and chased him on foot but the alleged victim was able to get away. The alleged victim reported that the same two males subsequently approached him at the Dunkin Donuts scaring the alleged victim causing him to leave the Dunkin Donuts and immediately go home. The alleged victim reported the incident to police because he was scared to walk home fearing that the males would hurt him. The alleged victim provided a description of the males. Based on his description, the officer was able to identify the Juvenile as one of the males that got out of the car and chased the alleged victim. Police interviewed the driver of the vehicle and he told police that the Juvenile was one of the males that got out of his vehicle and chased the alleged victim. Juvenile was charged with Assault.

Result: On the day of trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan was able to get the criminal complaint dismissed.

April 4, 2016
Commonwealth v. K.S. – New Bedford District Court

ASSAULT & BATTERY: PRETRIAL PROBATION

Defendant’s father called 911 to report a fight between the Defendant and his 16-year-old younger brother. The father reported that the Defendant charged at his younger brother and they began fighting on the floor. The father pointed out that the Defendant outweighs his younger brother by 100 lbs. The father intervened to protect his younger son from the Defendant and the father had to punch the Defendant in the face to break up the fight. The younger brother told police that the Defendant pushed his finger into his eye socket multiple times. Police observed that the younger brother had redness to his left eye and redness around his mouth. The parents made written statements to police. All parties (father, mother, brother) stated that the Defendant has an anger problem and needs help for his anger issues.

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan persuaded the Commonwealth to place his client on pretrial probation for one-year with the condition that he undergoes counseling to address the concerns of his family members. If the Defendant abides by the conditions, the criminal charge will be dismissed after one-year and the Defendant will not have to admit guilt.

March 17, 2016
Commonwealth v. B.S. – Plymouth District Court

ASSAULT & BATTERY: DISMISSED

Defendant had an argument with her boyfriend. The boyfriend told the Defendant to pack up her belongings and leave the residence. They proceeded to argue over the items that the Defendant wished to take with her upon moving out of the house. The argument escalated and the boyfriend alleged that the Defendant assaulted and battered him. The boyfriend called 911 and made a written statement to police. The police arrested the Defendant. Because the boyfriend-alleged victim was over 60 years old, Defendant was charged with Assault & Battery on an Elderly Person, an aggravated offense. The Commonwealth refused to dismiss the criminal complaint, even though the Defendant was in her late 50s and had no criminal record.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan placed the Commonwealth on notice that he would be asserting self-defense at trial. At trial, the alleged victim appeared ready to testify, as well as the arresting officer. At trial, the Commonwealth dismissed the criminal complaint that charged Defendant with an aggravated offense.

February 11, 2016
Commonwealth v. N.G. – Brockton District Court

ASSAULT & BATTERY: DISMISSED AT TRIAL

Defendant’s boyfriend called 911 and he reported that the Defendant bit him and that the Defendant had a knife in her hand. The boyfriend stated that they were having an argument over finances when the Defendant bit him and retrieved a knife at which point the victim left the apartment and called 911. Police were dispatched to the residence and they placed the Defendant under arrest for Domestic Assault & Battery.

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan prepared the case for trial. At trial, the alleged victim failed to appear. Attorney Gerald J. Noonan argued that the Commonwealth would not be able to introduce the 911 call into evidence, as the 911 call did not meet the necessary rules of evidence. Without the victim’s testimony and without the 911 call, the Commonwealth was forced to dismiss the case.

January 13, 2016
Commonwealth v. S.O. – Wareham District Court

ASSAULT & BATTERY: DISMISSED
RECKLESS ENDANGERMENT of CHILD: DISMISSED

The alleged victim walked into the police station to report that the Defendant assaulted him and endangered the life of his two year-old son. The Defendant’s sister had a two year-old child with the alleged victim. The alleged victim claimed that he was pushing his two year-old son in a baby stroller for an afternoon walk. When he was crossing the street, the alleged victim claimed that the Defendant accelerated his high-performance vehicle at him and the baby. The alleged victim claimed that the vehicle came inches from hitting him and the baby stroller. The alleged victim claimed that he had to push the baby stroller out of the way or else the vehicle would strike the baby stroller. The alleged victim claimed that the Defendant and two other males got out of the vehicle and approached him. The alleged victim claimed that the Defendant got in his face, yelled at him, threatened him, and pushed him into the baby stroller. The alleged victim claimed that an unidentified neighbor threatened to call the police and the Defendant fled the scene. Defendant had two open criminal cases. When he was charged with this offense, probation moved to find him in violation for committing a new offense while on probation and while he had two criminal cases pending. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan refused to have his client stipulate to violating probation by committing a new offense. Attorney Noonan requested a hearing to challenge probable cause that the Defendant committed a new crime.

Result: At the probation violation hearing, the alleged victim appeared and recanted his statements to police. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan moved the court to dismiss the criminal complaints because the alleged victim recanted his statement to police. The judge dismissed the criminal complaints and the Defendant was not found in violation of probation.

December 15, 2015
Commonwealth v. Juvenile – Attleboro Juvenile Court

ASSAULT & BATTERY on PREGNANT WOMAN: PRETRIAL PROBATION

Juvenile was a high school student. In class, his teacher disciplined him repeatedly causing the Juvenile to become upset. After class, the Juvenile grabbed the teacher’s hand for a hand shake. During the handshake, the Juvenile twisted her arm in an unnatural way causing the teacher “extreme pain” in her wrist and arm. The handshake pulled the teacher’s body downward. The teacher called out in pain and the Juvenile ran away. The Juvenile admitted to the Dean of Students what the teacher had reported. The teacher was visibly five and one-half months pregnant. The Juvenile was aware that the teacher was pregnant. The Dean of Students suspended the Juvenile for 10 days. The Juvenile had an extensive disciplinary record, including a violation physical altercation with school staff. At the time of this incident, the Juvenile had an open criminal case for being a minor in possession of alcohol.

Result: On the first court date, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan convinced the prosecutor to place the Juvenile on pretrial probation for six-months with the condition that the Juvenile enroll in and complete the Bridging the Gap Youth Program. Upon the successful completion of probation, the aggravated felony charge of Assault & Battery on a Pregnant Woman, and the misdemeanor charge of Minor in Possession of Alcohol will be dismissed.

October 15, 2015
Commonwealth v. J.C. – Lynn District Court

ASSAULT & BATTERY: NOLLE PROSS
DISORDERLY CONDUCT: NOLLE PROSS
RESISTING ARREST: CWOF
STALKING: Amended to THREATS TO COMMIT A CRIME: CWOF

The alleged victim dated the Defendant. They dated for 9 months. She states that the Defendant was “very controlling” over the course of the relationship. He controlled what clothing she wore and he controlled what people she could talk to. They broke up. Two days after the break-up, Defendant called the alleged victim at 1:00 a.m. He called her 4 times in a row screaming at her. In the last call, Defendant threatened to burn her house down. Approximately 15 minutes after the phone call, Defendant showed up to the alleged victim’s house. He barged into the house very intoxicated. She claims that the Defendant was screaming and yelling at her. She claims that she felt that the Defendant was going to hit her. She alleges that she was in fear of her life. The alleged victim’s parents got the Defendant to leave. The alleged victim called the Defendant’s mother to come pick him up. The alleged victim looked out her window and saw the Defendant fighting and wrestling with his father (defendant’s father) in the street. She called 911. Police arrived and observed the Defendant fighting his father in the street. The officer intervened. The officer ordered the Defendant to stop fighting his father. The officer attempted to gain control of the Defendant’s right arm but he repeatedly pulled his arm away. The officer warned the Defendant that he was spray him with mace if he continued to resist. The Defendant continued resisting and the officer sprayed him in the face and placed him under arrest. The police officer observed a 5 gallon container of gasoline in the street where the Defendant and his father were fighting. The alleged victim’s mother came outside. She picked up the gas container and observed that it was less than half-way full of gasoline. Police interviewed the Defendant’s father. The father stated that he received a call from the alleged victim stating that the Defendant barged into her house intoxicated and he needed to be removed. The father, after much persistence, was able to get the Defendant in his car to drive him home. While driving the car home, the Defendant stated that he was “going to burn that shit down.” The Defendant also threatened to kill himself. The Defendant jumped out of the moving car and ran home where he went into the garage and retrieved the 5 gallon container of gasoline. His father tackled him in an attempt to prevent the Defendant from going to the alleged victim’s house to carry out his threat. The Defendant was able to wrestle away from his father and run over to the alleged victim’s house; 1-2 streets away. The father got into his car and drove to the alleged victim’s house where he confronted the defendant in the street. The father tackled the Defendant to the ground and attempted to hold him down until police arrived.

Immediately, the District Attorney’s Office filed a Motion with the Court requesting that the Defendant be held in custody for 120 days or until his trial because he was “dangerous” and posed a danger to the alleged victim and the public if he were released. After a Dangerousness Hearing in which Attorney Patrick J. Noonan cross-examined the alleged victim and her mother, Attorney Noonan was successful in obtaining the release of his client with certain conditions.

The Commonwealth was intent on finding the Defendant Guilty of all the offenses and having him serve jail time. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan argued a Motion to Dismiss the Stalking charge arguing that the incidents of Stalking did not occur “over a period of time,” as required by statute. Attorney Noonan argued that the alleged acts of Stalking occurred within the time-span of 45 minutes, which is inconsistent with the language of the statute, which requires three instances of stalking “over a period of time.” Attorney Noonan’s Motion to Dismiss was denied but he preserved the issue for appeal.

Attorney Patrick J. Noonan prepared for trial. He obtained an arsenal of information to attack the alleged victim’s credibility at trial. Attorney Noonan obtained text messages showing that the Defendant broke up with the alleged victim – and not the other way around. Attorney Noonan obtained text messages showing that the alleged victim initiated contact with the Defendant on the night of the incident – and not the other way around. Attorney Noonan established that the alleged victim did not call the police or tell her parents when the Defendant threatened to burn her house down in the phone call. Rather, the alleged victim went back to sleep. Shortly, thereafter, the alleged victim saw the Defendant walking up the front steps to her home. Again, she did not call the police but decided to let him into the house showing that she did not take his threat to burn the house down seriously. When the Defendant was inside the house, Attorney Noonan obtained previously testimony from the mother that the Defendant did not touch anyone when he was inside the house. Attorney Noonan elicited testimony from the mother that there was no physical confrontation whatsoever in the home and it took less than one minute to get the Defendant to leave. After the Defendant left, the alleged victim nor her parents called 911 – but rather they all went back to sleep showing that they did not take his threats seriously. When the alleged victim looked out the window and saw the Defendant fighting with his father in the street, she told police at the scene that she obtained a gas can close by. Attorney Noonan obtained the alleged victim’s 911 call in which the alleged victim never tells the 911 dispatcher that the Defendant threatened to burn her house down or that she observed a gas can in the street. The 911 call shows that the alleged victim was not fearful, scared, crying, breathing heavy, etc. Rather, the 911 tape shows that the alleged victim was calm and unemotional. She even laughed at one point in the call, showing that she did not take the Defendant’s threat seriously. After the Defendant was arrested, the police officer interviewed the alleged victim and her parents. Attorney Noonan, in a prior hearing, established that the alleged victim and her parents declined getting a restraining order because they did not feel it was necessary. A week after the incident, the alleged victim obtained a restraining order. Attorney Noonan found a restraining order that the alleged victim filed against a previous ex-boyfriend several years before the Defendant’s case. The alleged victim applied and obtained the prior restraining order with the assistance of her mother. Attorney Noonan contended that the alleged victim was familiar with the process of obtaining a restraining and had she been in imminent fear of the Defendant she would have obtained one immediately. Attorney Noonan also argued that the alleged victim’s mother had taken precautions to protect her daughter in the past by assisting her daughter in getting a restraining order. Had the alleged victim’s mother felt that the Defendant posed a danger to her daughter, she would have persuaded her daughter to get a restraining order – as she did in the past. Attorney Noonan felt that the alleged victim’s mother did not persuade her daughter in getting a restraining order against the Defendant because she felt that the Defendant did not pose a danger to her daughter. After the alleged victim obtained a restraining order against the Defendant, Attorney Noonan obtained evidence of the alleged victim attempting to contact the Defendant. Attorney Noonan obtained a text message that the alleged victim sent to the Defendant’s mother. Attorney Noonan obtained another text message that the alleged victim sent to the Defendant’s friend. Attorney Noonan obtained information that the alleged victim sent a request to the Defendant’s Instagram account in an effort to contact him. When all her attempts to contact the Defendant failed, the alleged victim went into court and removed the restraining order. Attorney Noonan obtained an audio recording and transcript of the hearing. In the hearing, the alleged victim states that the real reason why she sought the restraining order against the Defendant was to give the Defendant some time to get himself together – rather than being in fear of him. When asked about the alleged incident, the alleged victim states that she did not believe that the Defendant would carry out such a threat because she knows him and she knows he is not the type of person to do such a thing. She further states that she would like to have contact with him because they were practically engaged and their relationship was not the type of thing to just throw away.

Attorney Noonan provided the Commonwealth with his discovery and the evidence he intended to introduce at trial. On the eve of trial, the Commonwealth made a proposition, which the Defendant refused. On the day of trial, the Commonwealth made another proposition. The Commonwealth entered a Nolle Prosequi on the Assault & Battery and Disorderly Conduct. The Commonwealth amended the felony Stalking to charge to a misdemeanor offense of Threats to Commit a Crime. The Commonwealth recommended Guilty findings on Resisting Arrest and Threats to Commit a Crime. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan convinced the Judge to continue the two charges without a finding and upon the Defendant’s successful completion of probation the two charges will be dismissed.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan persuades the Commonwealth to Nolle Pross the Assault & Battery charge and the Disorderly Conduct. Attorney Noonan persuades the Commonwealth to amend the felony Stalking charge to a misdemeanor offense of Threats to Commit a Crime. Attorney Noonan assured that the Stalking charge would not appear on his client’s record. Even though the Commonwealth recommended Guilty findings on the remaining charges of Resisting Arrest and Threats to Commit a Crime, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan convinced the judge to continue them without a finding. The client will not have any felonies on his record. If he complies with probation, he will get dismissals on the two misdemeanor offenses.

July 8, 2015
Commonwealth v. L.B. – Framingham District Court

ASSAULT & BATTERY: DISMISSED
ASSAULT & BATTERY: DISMISSED

Sudbury Police were dispatched to a residence for a domestic assault. Upon arrival, the alleged victim (defendant’s husband) reported that the defendant punched him in the jaw. Police observed a red mark to the victim’s jaw. Photos were taken of the victim’s injuries. The victim claimed that the defendant assaulted him the before by kicking him. Defendant admitted to pushing her husband forming the basis for the second count of Assault and Battery.

Result: On the first court date, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan dismissed charges outright against 53 year-old caregiver of disabled daughter with no criminal record.

June 24, 2015
Commonwealth v. P.S. – Brockton District Court

ASSAULT and BATTERY: DISMISSED

Police received a 911 call from an identified caller stating that her friend (alleged victim) sounded in distress and she (caller) could hear the defendant in the background heckling her. Upon arrival, the alleged victim was crying. She stated that the defendant pushed in the window in order to get into the apartment. Police observed the glass window on the floor with the blinds ripped off. Police also observed that the front wooden door was broken. She alleged that the defendant pushed her to the floor and stuck his foot in her face yelling at her, “You’re a fucking bitch.” Police observed blood on the defendant’s hand. Defendant has a total of seven restraining orders against him, two of which are permanent. The alleged victim in this case sought and obtained a restraining order. Attorney Gerald J. Noonan filed a Motion to Dismiss arguing that the alleged victim had a fifth amendment privilege against self-incrimination should she testify against him at trial. Specifically, there was evidence (text messages) showing that the alleged victim broke the front wooden door. There was also evidence that the alleged victim punched the defendant in the face earlier. Police also observed that the alleged victim was intoxicated. Absent the alleged victim’s testimony, the Commonwealth did not have enough evidence to proceed to trial and the case was dismissed.

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan gets domestic violence charge dismissed at trial.

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.

June 10, 2015
Commonwealth v. M.I. – Taunton District Court

ASSAULT and BATTERY: DISMISSED

On May 8, 2015, the alleged victim (nephew of defendant) went to the Easton Police Station crying and reported that the Defendant pushed him, grabbed him from behind, wrestled with him and threatened to kill him. The alleged victim fled the house in his vehicle and went directly to the police station to report the incident.

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan filed a Motion to Dismiss arguing that the alleged victim had a fifth amendment privilege against self-incrimination stemming from criminal acts he engaged in himself during the dispute and prior to the dispute. The judge dismissed the case.

May 5, 2015
Commonwealth v. J.M. – Brockton District Court

ASSAULT & BATTERY w/ DANGEROUS WEAPON: NOT GUILTY

Defendant was charged with Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon stemming from allegations that he grabbed his girlfriend’s phone and struck her repeatedly in the head with it. The alleged victim claimed that the Defendant slapped her, pushed her to the ground, and threatened to kill her. After the assault, the alleged victim immediately went to the police station to report it and she obtained an emergency restraining order.

Result: After a jury trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan got a Not Guilty verdict on the violent felony offense of Assault & Battery with a Dangerous Weapon.

March 19, 2015
Commonwealth v. R.P. – Brockton Superior Court

ASSAULT w/ INTENT TO MURDER: NOT GUILTY

Defendant was indicted for Assault with Intent to Murder stemming from allegations that he tried to murder his wife with knives he kept throwing at her. Attorney Gerald J. Noonan and Attorney Patrick J. Noonan tried the case before a jury. At trial, the Commonwealth introduced a 911 tape in which the alleged victim was screaming and crying that her husband was trying to kill her with knives he kept throwing. The Commonwealth also presented photographs of damage inside the couple’s home including stab marks in the wall, holes in the wall, furniture tossed over, and broken glass. Attorney Gerald J. Noonan and Attorney Patrick J. Noonan argued that the Defendant directed all his destruction on the house (not his wife) by throwing knives into the wall, stabbing the wall, punching holes on the wall, and tossing over furniture. During the course of his destruction, the Defendant never touched his wife, and Attorney Noonan presented evidence that the alleged victim did not sustain any injuries and never complained of any injuries.

Result: After a three-day trial, the jury found the Defendant Not Guilty of Assault with Intent to Murder, the most serious of the indictments. “Trial opens in Brockton for ex-firefighter charged with assaulting late wife.”

March 9, 2015
Commonwealth v. T.W. – Brockton District Court

ASSAULT & BATTERY: DISMISSED
ASSAULT & BATTERY w/ DANGEROUS WEAPON: DISMISSED
THREAT TO COMMIT CRIME (MURDER): DISMISSED

Brockton Police were dispatched to the Defendant’s residence after receiving a 911 call in which her husband reported that she had assaulted him with a hammer and fled the house. The husband told police that a verbal argument ensued between them and the Defendant threatened to kill him. The alleged victim stated that the Defendant same into his bedroom with a screw driver and hammer and struck him with the hammer. Police observed marks to the victim’s right shoulder. The victim took out an emergency restraining order against the Defendant, which was granted by the judge. After taking out the emergency restraining order, the victim went to spend the night at his church. The Defendant and her two sons went to the church and assaulted the victim by punching and hitting him. Attorney Gerald J. Noonan filed a pretrial Motion to Dismiss and presented an Affidavit from the victim stating that he would invoke his marital privilege and refuse to testify against his wife at trial.

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan argued that, in the absence of the victim’s testimony, the Commonwealth would unable to prove the case at trial. The judge agreed and dismissed the criminal complaints.

February 27, 2015
Commonwealth v. J.C. – Lynn District Court

ASSAULT & BATTERY: RELEASED FROM CUSTODY
DISORDERLY CONDUCT: RELEASED FROM CUSTODY
RESISTING ARREST: RELEASED FROM CUSTODY
THREATS TO COMMIT ARSON: RELEASED FROM CUSTODY
STALKING: RELEASED FROM CUSTODY

The Commonwealth sought to hold the Defendant in custody for 120 days or until trial due to the seriousness of the allegations that he attempted to burn down his ex-girlfriend’s house with gasoline until police intervened to physically stop him. After a Dangerousness Hearing, Defendant was released from custody. Upon a finding of dangerousness and a finding that no conditions of release would ensure the public safety, the Defendant would be held in the House of Correction for 120 days under the new domestic violence statute. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan represented the client at the Dangerousness Hearing and thoroughly impeached and discredited the testimony of the alleged victim-girlfriend.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan saves his client from serving 120 days in jail.

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.

September 8, 2014
Commonwealth v. R.N. – Brockton District Court

ASSAULT with DEADLY WEAPON: DISMISSED at TRIAL

The alleged victim claimed that the Defendant pulled out a handgun, which he believed to be a Glock 9 mm. handgun, and threatened him with it in the aftermath of a heated domestic incident regarding child custody. In addition, the alleged victim claimed that the Defendant tried pulling him out his car and ripped the liner free from his driver’s side door. The alleged victim sped off in his car in fear and called 911. Today, the case was scheduled for trial.

Result: At the first trial date, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan successfully obtained an outright dismissal of the criminal charge.

August 1, 2014
Commonwealth v. N.W. – Attleboro District Court

ASSAULT & BATTERY ON PUBLIC OFFICIAL: PRETRIAL PROBATION
RESISTING ARREST: PRETRIAL PROBATION
DISORDERLY CONDUCT: PRETRIAL PROBATION
VANDALISM: PRETRIAL PROBATION

Client, sophomore at Wheaton College, was arrested by campus police stemming from an incident in which Defendant smashed a bathroom mirror in a dormitory during an argument with his girlfriend. Upon arrival, Defendant yelled profanities at the campus police. Defendant kicked one campus police officer three times. Defendant was placed under arrest at which point Defendant pushed a campus police officer and continually resisted arrest. After his arraignment, Defendant retained Attorney Patrick J. Noonan. The campus police and department of public safety refused to a proposal to place Defendant on pretrial probation. Wheaton College also revoked Defendant’s scholarship and permanently suspended him from the school. As a result, the Commonwealth only offered Defendant a continuance without a finding on the charges. Attorney Patrick met with school officials and the dean of students at Wheaton College in an effort to persuade them to place Defendant on pretrial probation. Attorney Noonan eventually persuaded Wheaton College, Campus Police, and the District Attorney’s Office to place Defendant on pretrial probation.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan persuades the government to place his client on pretrial probation for two-years at the conclusion of which all criminal charges will be dismissed outright, and client does not have to admit guilt. Client may report on job applications that he does not have any convictions.

July 22, 2014
Commonwealth v. J.G. – Dedham District Court

ASSAULT w/ DANGEROUS WEAPON: DISMISSED AT TRIAL
ASSAULT and BATTERY: DISMISSED AT TRIAL
THREAT TO COMMIT CRIME (MURDER) DISMISSED AT TRIAL
UNLAWFUL POSSESSION of FIREARM: DISMISSED AT TRIAL
UNLAWFUL POSSESSION of AMMUNITION: DISMISSED AT TRIAL

Defendant was arrested on allegations made against him by his ex-girlfriend of four years. She alleged that the Defendant choked her. She alleges a history of abuse, alleging that two-weeks prior to the incident Defendant choked her to the point that she had visible markings on her neck. She alleges that Defendant took out a black revolver and threatened to kill her with it. Police searched the Defendant’s home and found the black revolver (matching the alleged victim’s description) loaded with four rounds of ammunition. The alleged victim claims that the Defendant called her and threatened to kill her by slicing her throat. The alleged victim obtained an Abuse Prevention Order against the Defendant. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan conducted extensive discovery and amassed damaging evidence to impeach the alleged victim’s credibility at trial.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan obtains an outright dismissal of all criminal charges, which included violent offenses, a violent felony offense, and firearm offenses.

June 27, 2014
Commonwealth v. M.R. – Attleboro District Court

ASSAULT & BATTERY: DISMISSED PRIOR TO ARRAIGNMENT

Client, 49 year-old, father of three with no criminal record, was charged with Assault & Battery stemming from a domestic violence incident in which his wife called 911. Wife told police that the Defendant blew up and threw a fork almost striking their infant twin babies. Wife also reported that the Defendant grabbed her around the neck and threw her to the floor. Police observed red marks around the wife’s neck.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan obtains a dismissal prior to arraignment saving his client from having an Assault & Battery on his clean record, and client avoids termination from his employment.

June 4, 2014
Commonwealth v. A.W. – West Roxbury District Court

ASSAULT and BATTERY: DISMISSED / SEALED

Boston Police responded to a domestic disturbance in which the alleged victim reported that her boyfriend (Defendant) had punched her in the face and that he had possession of two firearms and a rifle. The alleged victim stated that the Defendant suffers from depression and had been drinking heavily all day. The alleged victim stated that the Defendant threatened her by saying, “If you don’t get out of the house I am going to shoot you” and the Defendant then punched her in the face. She then ran out of the house and called 911. Attorney Gerald J. Noonan successfully dismissed the case and sealed the criminal charge from his client’s record. This was a considerable victory given that the Defendant had no prior criminal record. He was educated in England and worked in the financial industry for years. The Defendant was seeking new employment in the financial field and the presence of the Assault and Battery charge on his record would have seriously prejudiced him getting hired.

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan gets domestic violence charge dismissed outright and permanently sealed against financial advisor.

February 20, 2014
Commonwealth v. Jane Doe – Lowell Juvenile Court

A&B with DANGEROUS WEAPON: DISMISSED PRIOR TO ARRAIGNMENT
ATTEMPT TO COMMIT A CRIME: DISMISSED PRIOR TO ARRAIGNMENT
CONSPIRACY: DISMISSED PRIOR TO ARRAIGNMENT

Winchester Police were dispatched to the hospital in response to a past assault. The alleged victim reported that he had been walking to the bank to deposit some cash when he was attacked by two people wearing masks. The second attacker was wearing brass knuckles and punched the alleged victim in the side of the head while the other assailant held him down. The first attacker’s mask fell off and the alleged victim identified him but the second attacker with the brass knuckles was never identified. The alleged victim sustained many injuries as a result of the attack and robbery, which the police photographed, including a broken nose. Defendant was charged as being a joint venturer in the armed robbery.

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan gets criminal charges dismissed outright against Juvenile prior to arraignment saving his client from having these charges on her record.

February 14, 2014
Commonwealth v. A.R. – Brockton District Court

ASSAULT & BATTERY: DISMISSED at TRIAL

Client, 27 year old bus driver with no criminal record, was arrested and charged with Assault & Battery stemming from an incident in which his wife alleged that he slapped her across the face in the presence of their two children. The wife reported another incident in which the Defendant attacked her but a family member intervened to prevent the assault. At trial, wife asserted her marital privilege not to testify against her husband. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan convinced the Commonwealth that they lacked enough independent evidence to proceed with the case, as the 911 tape was inadmissible and the family member witness was unavailable and lives in Haiti.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan obtains outright dismissal of domestic violence charge.

February 12, 2014
Commonwealth v. C.L. – Brockton District Court

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

Brockton Police were dispatched to a domestic violence call. The alleged victim stated that the Defendant was intoxicated and threw her to the bedroom floor and began to punch her in the face and head with a closed fist. She stated that the Defendant strangled her and she believes that she lost consciousness. The Defendant threatened to kill and the grandchild during the assault. The granddaughter witnessed the assault and called 911. Police observed that the house was in disarray with items strewn about. Police observed swelling to the face of the alleged and she was transported to the emergency room.

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan gets violence offenses dismissed outright.

January 6, 2014
Commonwealth v. A.A. – Brockton District Court

ABDW on PREGNANT WOMAN: REDUCED TO SIMPLE ASSAULT & BATTERY / IMMIGRATION CONSEQUENCES

Client, 42-year-old immigrant construction worker from Cape Verde with four children, was charged with Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon on a Pregnant Woman, which is an aggravated felony. Defendant entered Rice’s Market in Brockton. Defendant was previously prohibited from entering Rice’s Market due to a prior incident with the female cashier (verbal altercation). On this occasion, Defendant approached the same female cashier to purchase a one-quart can of cooking oil. The female clerk informed Defendant that he was banned from the premises. Defendant became upset and threw the can of cooking oil at the female cashier striking her in the stomach. The female cashier was 8 months pregnant at time and was taken via ambulance to the emergency room. Because the charge constitutes an aggravated felony, Defendant was subject to deportation from the United States. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan procured an agreement with the Commonwealth to have the aggravated felony reduced to a misdemeanor Assault & Battery. Even with the reduced charge of Assault & Battery, Defendant would be subject to deportation, if convicted, because he had a prior conviction for Assault in Battery in 2009. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan procured an agreed upon disposition of the Assault & Battery charge called “guilty file.” For purposes of immigration law, a “guilty file” is not considered a conviction because it carries no penalty.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan successfully reduces aggravated felony charge of ABDW on a pregnant woman to the misdemeanor offense of simple Assault & Battery, and client avoids possible deportation.

December 30, 2013
Commonwealth v. J.S. – Brockton District Court

ASSAULT and BATTERY: DISMISSED

Defendant was a reserve police officer for the Wareham Police Department. Defendant and his girlfriend were traveling on the highway together with the girlfriend driving when they began to argue. During the argument, Defendant became angry took her cell phone and threw it out the car window. Defendant admitted to police that he gave an open-handed back hand to his girlfriend’s right ear as she was driving. The girlfriend stated that the Defendant also threw pictures of her child out the car window, as she was driving. The girlfriend stated that the Defendant hit her in the face and head, as she was driving. Police observed that the girlfriend had a swollen right ear and a fresh abrasion and small cut behind the right ear. She also had a red mark under her left eye. Attorney Noonan filed a Motion to Dismiss and successfully dismissed the criminal complaint because there was evidence that the alleged victim had committed crimes during the course of the incident, which precluded her from testifying on Fifth Amendment grounds. Specifically, there was evidence that the alleged victim had slapped the Defendant in the face several times and punched him in the groin area during the altercation. Due to the alleged victim’s erratic behavior, the Defendant activated the emergency brake and ran out of the vehicle. Attorney Noonan presented an affidavit to the court from the alleged victim wherein she states that she intends to invoke her Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. In addition, the affidavit stated that she did not want any criminal charges to be lodged against her boyfriend and that they were undergoing counseling together to resolve their issues.

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan gets domestic violence charge dismissed outright against police officer.

November 29, 2013
V.A. vs. R.B. – Taunton District Court

Docket No.: 1231 AC 0648

ASSAULT & BATTERY: DISMISSED

The alleged victim was an employee and caretaker at a residential facility housing individuals with mental disorders. The Defendant is a mentally retarded and intellectually disabled resident of the facility. The alleged victim claimed that the Defendant attacked him punched him in the face, spat on him, knocked him to the ground, and punched him in the head. At the clerk magistrate’s hearing, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan examined an employee and caretaker at the facility who witnessed the incident between the alleged victim and the Defendant. Attorney Noonan elicited testimony from the witness who observed the alleged victim punching the Defendant, as he was being restrained face-down on the ground. This witness told the alleged victim to stop punching the Defendant but he continued punching the Defendant anyway. The clerk-magistrate dismissed the criminal complaint.

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan persuades clerk-magistrate not to issue criminal complaint against his mentally disabled client.

November 21, 2013
Commonwealth v. J.C. – Salem District Court

ASSAULT & BATTERY: NOLLE PROSS and RECORD SEALED

Client, 19-year-old Military Police Officer with no criminal record, was arrested and charged with Assault and Battery stemming from an allegation that he pushed and threw his girlfriend during a heated argument. After his arraignment, client retained Attorney Patrick J. Noonan. Prior to trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan informed the Commonwealth that his cross-examination of the alleged victim would incriminate her because she committed several crimes during the night of the alleged incident, including Assault and Battery, Malicious Destruction of Property, and others. At trial, the alleged victim opted not to testify. The Commonwealth nolle prossed the charge at trial. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan then filed a Motion to Seal the Assault and Battery charge from his client’s record arguing that the unsealed criminal charge would pose a specific harm to his client, as he is aspiring to become a Corrections Officer.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan dismisses the case outright and the Assault & Battery charge is permanently sealed from the client’s record.

August 21, 2013
Commonwealth v. M.M. – Attleboro District Court

ASSAULT: PRETRIAL PROBATION

Attleboro Police were dispatched to a domestic violence incident in progress. Defendant’s wife reported that the Defendant had placed his nine-year-old son in a headlock and squeezed his nose in an attempt to stop him from breathing. The Defendant continued to threaten the child by ripping the blankets off his bed, clenching his fist, and yelling, “You want to see what killing is?” The mother of the child called police because she was afraid for the safety of her nine-year-old son. Attorney Gerald J. Noonan successfully obtained a great disposition for his client known as pretrial probation. Specifically, if the Defendant completes a batterer’s program and does not get arrested for any new crimes, the case will be dismissed in one year.

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan persuades the government to place his client on pretrial probation for one-year at the conclusion of which the criminal charge will be dismissed outright.

July 23, 2013
Commonwealth v. Z.S. – Brockton District Court

ASSAULT & BATTERY: DISMISSED at TRIAL

Client, 28-year-old former marine, was charged with Assault and Battery stemming from a domestic dispute in which he allegedly slammed his wife’s head into the wall of their hotel room.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan dismisses domestic violence charge outright on his first court appearance.

July 1, 2013
Commonwealth v. D.R. – Brockton District Court

ASSAULT & BATTERY: DISMISSED at TRIAL

Client, a Systems Analyst, was charged with Assault and Battery stemming from a domestic dispute in which he allegedly pushed his wife knocking her down some stairs causing her to call 911 and report the incident. After the arraignment, client hired Attorney Patrick J. Noonan.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan convinces Commonwealth to dismiss case due to lack of evidence and issues regarding a possible 5th amendment privilege concerning the victim.

April 24, 2013
Commonwealth v. J.P. – Framingham District Court

ASSAULT & BATTERY WITH DANGEROUS WEAPON: NOLLE PROSS

Client, 23 year-old college student, was charged with Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon (felony) stemming from a domestic argument in which she allegedly threw a one-gallon container at the victim, striking the victim on the back. By way of Motion to Dismiss, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan dismissed the dangerous weapon portion of the offense on the grounds that the alleged object did not constitute a dangerous weapon under the law.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan gets violent felony offense reduced to simple misdemeanor Assault & Battery and the Commonwealth decides not to prosecute.

February 13, 2013
Commonwealth v. C.S. – Brockton District Court

ASSAULT & BATTERY: DISMISSED at TRIAL

Client, 50 year-old mechanic, was charged with Assault and Battery stemming from a domestic argument with his girlfriend of 16 years in which he allegedly struck her on the left side of the face and knocked her to the ground.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan persuades Commonwealth to dismiss domestic violence charge based on a change in the alleged victim’s position.

February 11, 2013
Commonwealth v. M.L. – Brockton District Court

ASSAULT & BATTERY: DISMISSED at TRIAL

Client, truck driver with no criminal record, was charged with Assault and Battery stemming from a domestic argument where he allegedly shoved his wife. At trial, the wife asserted her marital privilege not to testify against her husband, the Defendant. Without the wife’s testimony, the Commonwealth lacked evidence to prosecute the case.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan gets domestic violence charge dismissed at trial.

December 12, 2012
Commonwealth v. J.G. – Stoughton District Court

DANGEROUSNESS HEARING: RELEASED FROM CUSTODY

The Commonwealth sought to hold the Defendant in custody for 120 days or until trial stemming from allegations that the Defendant assaulted, beat, choked, and threatened to kill his ex-girlfriend with a loaded revolver. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan represented the client at the Dangerousness Hearing where he established that the alleged victim was highly incredible and had a motive to lie and fabricate the allegations. Attorney Noonan also established that the police conduct a shoddy investigation. After hearing, the judge agreed to release the Defendant on bail with conditions. Eventually, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan was able to dismiss all charges at trial.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan saves his client from serving 120 days in jail.

December 10, 2012
Commonwealth v. K.L. – Brockton District Court

ASSAULT & BATTERY DANGEROUS WEAPON: DISMISSED upon MOTION

Client, with no criminal record, was charged with Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon (felony) stemming from a verbal altercation with two women during which he struck both victims with an apartment door. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan filed a Motion to Dismiss the felony count arguing that the apartment door did not constitute a dangerous weapon based upon comparative case law. Attorney Noonan argued that the Defendant did not use the apartment door in such a way as to constitute a dangerous weapon.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan’s Motion to Dismiss was allowed resulting in the dismissal of the felony charge.

November 16, 2012
Commonwealth v. A.D. – Brockton District Court

THREATS TO COMMIT MURDER: DISMISSED

Client, 25 year-old hospital worker, charged with Threats to Commit a Crime to wit: murder stemming from an incident in which he threatened to kill his cousin with a kitchen knife. When police arrived on the scene, they recovered a kitchen knife. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan successfully obtained an agreement with the prosecution and procured a disposition for his client called pretrial probation. Pretrial probation is a very difficult disposition to attain because it is available only in limited circumstances and must be agreed to by the prosecution. At the conclusion of a non-supervisory probationary period, the criminal charge will be dismissed. Pretrial probation is much better than a continuance without a finding (CWOF) because the Defendant does have to admit to sufficient evidence for a finding of guilty. Therefore, it cannot be held against the Defendant as a prior offense if he is ever charged with a crime in the future. Defendant was placed on pretrial probation for one-year. On November 16, 2013, the criminal charge was dismissed.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan gets Threats to Commit Murder charge dismissed outright.

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

ASSAULT & BATTERY: DISMISSED at TRIAL

Client, 55 year-old substance abuse counselor, charged with Assault and Battery stemming from a domestic dispute in which she allegedly attacked her husband, scratching his ear, elbow and wrist. The Commonwealth had photographs showing the husband’s injuries, which included scratch marks and blood on his face. At trial, the husband asserted his marital privilege not to testify against his wife, Defendant. At that point, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan moved to dismiss the case arguing that the Commonwealth had insufficient evidence to proceed absent the husband’s testimony.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan gets domestic violence charge dismissed outright against substance abuse counselor.

September 24, 2012
Commonwealth v. S.B. – Wareham District Court

ASSAULT & BATTERY: DISMISSED at TRIAL

Client, 57 year-old businessman, charged with Assault and Battery stemming from a domestic dispute in which he allegedly grabbed his wife by the throat, strangled her, and head-butted her in the left eye. At trial, wife asserted her marital privilege not to testify against her husband, Defendant. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan excluded the 911 call on evidentiary grounds leaving the Commonwealth with insufficient evidence to proceed.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan gets domestic violence charge dismissed outright at trial.

July 30, 2012
Commonwealth v. T.W. – Plymouth District Court

ASSAULT & BATTERY: DISMISSED PRIOR TO ARRAIGNMENT
MALICIOUS DESTRUCTION: DISMISSED PRIOR TO ARRAIGNMENT

Client, 35-year government contractor and father of four children, charged with Assault & Battery and Malicious Destruction of Property stemming from an altercation in which the Defendant allegedly punched another man with a closed fist during an argument and damaged the windshield of the victim’s vehicle. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan was successful in getting the charges dismissed prior to arraignment to preserve the client’s criminal record.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan gets all criminal charges dismissed prior to arraignment saving his client from having any charges entered on his record saving client’s job, as his occupation requires government clearance.

July 12, 2012
Commonwealth v. I.W. Brockton District Court

ASSAULT and BATTERY: PRETRIAL PROBATION

An identified caller contacted police and reported that she observed the Defendant and a woman inside a car in a parking lot. The civilian witness reported that she observed the Defendant pull the alleged victim’s hair and grab her arm in an attempt to prevent her from leaving the vehicle. The Defendant admitted to grabbing the alleged victim’s arm. The alleged victim reported that the Defendant did grab her arm as she was attempting to exit the vehicle. Attorney Gerald J. Noonan successfully obtained an excellent disposition for his client known as pretrial probation. Specifically, the case would be dismissed in six-month provided that the Defendant not commit any new crime.

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan gets domestic violence charge dismissed against college student and saves his client from possible deportation from the U.S.

June 8, 2012
Commonwealth v. A.W. – Fall River District Court

WITNESS INTIMIDATION: DISMISSED PRIOR TO ARRAIGNMENT
THREATS TO COMMIT A CRIME: DISMISSED PRIOR TO ARRAIGNMENT

Client, 28 year-old Captain in the U.S. Army, was charged with intimidation of a witness (felony) and threats to commit a crime stemming from allegations that he threatened a witness, who was a victim in an unrelated case. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan was successful in getting the case dismissed prior to arraignment, arguing that there was insufficient evidence to identify the Defendant as the perpetrator. The formal institution of criminal charges on the client’s record would have seriously affected his military career.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan gets criminal charges dismissed prior to arraignment and no charges were entered on his client’s record, a Captain in the US Army.

May 10, 2012
Commonwealth v. T.M. – Brockton District Court

ASSAULT and BATTERY: DISMISSED
THREATS TO COMMIT CRIME: DISMISSED

The alleged victim went to the Brockton Police Station to report that her boyfriend (Defendant) and father of her two children assaulted her by hitting her on the left side of her face. After the assault, the alleged victim went to her parents’ home with her two children. The alleged victim reported that the Defendant called her and made threatening statements to her on the cell phone. She reported that the Defendant stated that he had a knife and unless she wanted someone to get hurt she should go with him.

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan dismisses all charges due to the fact that the alleged victim asserted her Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination in court.

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.

January 30, 2012
Commonwealth v. K.Z. – Stoughton District Court

ASSAULT & BATTERY (on minor) DISMISSED
AB with DANGEROUS WEAPON (on minor) DISMISSED

Sharon Police were dispatched to a domestic dispute between the Defendant (father) and his 14 year-old son (alleged victim) who told police that his father hit him across the face with his open hands and then hit him a couple of times in the butt with a frying pan. Upon arrival, Police observed that the alleged victim was visibly shaken and sobbing. Police observed red marks on the alleged victim’s upper thigh and butt.

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan gets aggravated felony charge dismissed outright.

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.

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

ASSAULT & BATTERY: DISMISSED upon MOTION

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

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

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

ASSAULT & BATTERY: NOT GUILTY
ASSAULT & BATTERY w/ DANGEROUS WEAPON: NOT GUILTY

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

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

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

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

This Case In the News

May 27, 2010
Commonwealth v. E.P. – Wrentham District Court

ASSAULT & BATTERY: DISMISSED AT CLERK’S HEARING

Defendant and five other people went to the Patriots football game at Gillette Stadium in Foxboro. After the game, the members of the party got into their vehicles in the parking lot to leave the stadium. Defendant’s son was operating a vehicle with the defendant and defendant’s brother riding as passengers. The other two members of the party were traveling in a separate vehicle. Defendant’s son drove the vehicle toward the exit of the parking lot with the second vehicle following. As they were proceeding in a line of traffic toward the exit, a large SUV started to back out of a parking space and was backing into the line of cars. Defendant’s rolled down the window and told the driver of the SUV to move out of the way, as the SUV was about to back into traffic. Defendant exited the vehicle to help the SUV back out. Suddenly, the SUV backed up and struck the defendant knocking him to the ground. When he was knocked down to the ground, defendant threw his whoopee pie at the SUV and raised his arms in the air. Defendant approached the operator of the SUV and told him that he just struck him and that the defendant would like to obtain his license and registration. The operator exited the SUV and started yelling at the defendant at the top of his lungs. The male operator grabbed the defendant by the armpit and pushed him backwards, still screaming at him. As the male operator was assaulting the defendant, he knocked him into a female party – belonging to the male operator’s group. The male operator yelled at the defendant, “You just hit a woman!” Defendant replied, “If I did hit somebody, I am sorry, I didn’t mean to.” The male operator pressed his elbow into defendant’s neck and pressed him up against a light post. The other men in the SUV converged on the defendant, threw him to the ground, and they all started to punch him. The members of the defendant’s party tried to intercede but they were assaulted by the other males. The SUV then sped off. Stadium security and city police were called to the scene where the SUV party claimed that the defendant hit the female in the face. The officers immediately placed the defendant under arrest for Assault & Battery on the woman without hearing the defendant’s version of events.

Result: At defendant’s arraignment, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan filed a Motion to Dismiss on the basis that the defendant was denied his opportunity to have a Show Cause Hearing. The criminal complaint was dismissed, and a Show Cause Hearing was held. At the Show Cause Hearing, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan presented the defendant’s version of the incident, e.g., that defendant was struck by the SUV, that defendant was assaulted and injured by the group of males in the SUV, and that the defendant inadvertently struck the female party in the course of the assault on him. After hearing, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan convinced the clerk-magistrate not to issue the criminal complaint against his client.

October 14, 2009
Commonwealth v. B.G. – West Roxbury District Court

ASSAULT & BATTERY: DISMISSED

Defendant was charged with Assault & Battery stemming from an incident in which police responded to a 911 call and upon arrival the alleged victim (defendant’s girlfriend) alleged that the defendant struck her. Attorney Gerald J. Noonan marked the case for trial. At the trial, the alleged victim invoked her Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. Had the alleged victim testified at trial, her answers with regards to the alleged incident would tend to incriminate her. After invoking her Fifth Amendment privilege, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan filed a Motion to Dismiss arguing that the Commonwealth did not have sufficient evidence to proceed to trial absent the testimony of the alleged victim. Attorney Noonan’s Motion to Dismiss was allowed and the criminal complaint was dismissed.

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan gets Assault & Battery charge against military man dismissed outright at trial.

September 26, 2008
Commonwealth v. M.A. – Taunton District Court Docket No.: 0731 CR 1075

ASSAULT & BATTERY: DISMISSED

Defendant was formerly employed at a gas station and was fired by his employer for allegedly stealing money and gas. The alleged victim (former employer) states that he went to his daughter’s school to pick her up when he was confronted by the Defendant who swore at him and pushed him to the floor injuring his hands, nose, elbow, face, knee and hip. As a result of the assault and battery, the alleged victim went to the emergency room.

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan gets Assault & Battery charge dismissed.

August 7, 2007
Commonwealth v. R.N. – West Roxbury District Court

THREAT TO COMMIT A CRIME: DISMISSED
CRIMINAL HARASSMENT: DISMISSED

Police received a 911 call reporting threatening phone calls. Upon arrival, the female caller stated that she received several phones in which the Defendant threatened to “pop her daughter when he gets the chance.” Defendant had been in a four-year dating relationship with the daughter until they broke up. She reported to police that the Defendant is known to carry a gun. Later, the alleged victim (defendant’s ex-girlfriend) walked into the police station and reported that the Defendant threatened her with a gun. She stated that he threatened her with a gun on a prior occasion. She stated that on two different occasions the Defendant punched her. She stated that the Defendant has called her and sent text messages saying that he has guns and isn’t afraid to die. She provided police with some of the text messages.

Result: On the day of trial, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan got all criminal charges dismissed.

April 4, 2007
Commonwealth v. W.C. – Middlesex Superior Court

HOME INVASION: DISMISSED

Defendant, and three other accomplices, was indicted for Home Invasion, Breaking & Entering (Person in Fear), Kidnapping, Assault & Battery, and Larceny from Building stemming from a daytime house break into a residence in Medford. Police were dispatched to a residence for a report of a home invasion. The alleged victim stated that one white female and three black males came into the home through the front door. He was thrown to the ground and beaten. He was punched in the face and head multiple times. He was choked to the point of almost losing consciousness. His hands were tied with an electrical cord. The invaders demanded to know where the money was. A written statement from one of the accomplices stated that the Defendant participated in the house break and was present inside the house during the invasion. Attorney Gerald J. Noonan filed a Motion to Dismiss the Home Invasion Indictment on the grounds that the Commonwealth failed to present sufficient evidence that the defendant was armed with a dangerous weapon prior to entry or that he knew of the existence of a dangerous weapon at the time of allegedly entering the house. An element of the offense requires proof that the defendant was armed with a dangerous weapon at the time of entry into a dwelling house. Commonwealth v. Ruiz, 426 Mass. 391 (1998). Judge agreed with Attorney Noonan that omission of proof on this element required dismissal of the Home Invasion indictment.

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan gets Home Invasions indictment dismissed, which carries up to 20 years in state prison.

April 13, 2006
Commonwealth v. D.S. – Brockton District Court

ASSAULT & BATTERY: DISMISSED
WITNESS INTIMIDATION: DISMISSED

Brockton police were dispatched to the Good Samaritan Hospital for a domestic violence call. Upon arrival, the alleged victim reported to the police that the Defendant had grabbed her arm leaving bruises and finger imprints on her bicep and triceps areas. The Defendant continued arguing with the alleged victim throughout the home. The Defendant pushed the alleged victim into the closet door. Police observed damage to the closet door, which had been knocked off its tracks. The argument escalated into the basement where the defendant pushed the alleged victim over an end-table. Police photographs the injuries to the alleged victim, which included bruises and lacerations to the arms, neck, chest, and back. The alleged victim tried calling the police but the Defendant took the phone away and destroyed it. It took the alleged victim approximately 30 minutes to get away from the Defendant in order to contact the police.

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan gets serious domestic violence charges dismissed.

June 2, 2005
Commonwealth v. G.M. – Brockton District Court

ASSAULT & BATTERY: DISMISSED

The alleged victim reported to West Bridgewater Police that she had been over her mother’s house when her brother became verbally abusive toward her and physically picked her up and threw her against a wall causing her to sustain bruises on her body. In a prior incident, the Defendant had assaulted his mother and sister; breaking his mother’s toe and causing bruises to his sister’s back. The incident resulted in a violent struggle between police and the Defendant. Police interviewed two witnesses at the home during the assault.

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan gets domestic violence charge dismissed.

February 16, 2005
Commonwealth v. G.C. – Suffolk Superior Court

ACCESSORY AFTER THE FACT-MURDER: NOLLE PROSEQUI

During the night of December 8, 2001, William Angelesco went to the Squires Lounge in Revere and allegedly killed on Peter DeVito (a strip club manager) by shooting him in the head and abdomen with a semi-automatic pistol. Prosecutors alleged that William Angelesco shot Peter DeVito at close range inside the entrance of the crowded Squire’s Lounge in retaliation because Angelesco blamed Mr. DeVito for roughing him up and having him tossed out of Centerfolds strip club where DeVito had been the manager. Angelesco happened to run into DeVito at the Revere Club where he allegedly shot him with a 9mm pistol in front of more than 100 patrons. Prior to the alleged murder, Mr. Angelesco and the Defendant worked together running an illegal gambling operation, allegedly. The morning after the alleged murder, the Commonwealth alleged that Mr. Angelesco went to the Defendant’s home. The Commonwealth alleged that the Defendant assisted Mr. Angelesco in avoiding arrest by making his vehicle accessible to Mr. Angelesco. With the Defendant’s assistance, Mr. Angelesco was able to leave the Boston area and avoid capture. During Mr. Angelesco’s absence, Defendant allegedly provided spending money to Angelesco’s wife. The Commonwealth sought to have the Defendant testify against Mr. Angelesco at the Grand Jury but the Defendant refused on Fifth Amendment grounds. William Angelesco was charged with the murder of Peter DeVito and the Commonwealth sought to charge William Angelesco and the Defendant together. Attorney Gerald J. Noonan filed a Motion to Sever the Defendant’s case from William Angelesco’s case, which was allowed. Attorney Robert Sheketoff defended and successfully acquitted Mr. Angelesco of murder. Attorney Sheketoff established that there were conflicting eyewitness accounts of the shooter. Some witnesses described the shooter as having blond hair and one witness described the shooter as having a mustache when William Angelesco had black hair and was clean shaven. Some witnesses described the shooter as wearing a hood, some described him as wearing a skully cap, and some described him as wearing a baseball cap. Although Mr. Angelesco’s two cousins offered incriminating grand jury testimony against him, Attorney Sheketoff established that the witnesses had credibility problems – one of them having bipolar depression and the other having serious drug problems.

Result: After William Angelesco was acquitted of murder, the Commonwealth entered a Nolle Prosequi against the Defendant for being an accessory after the fact to murder.

July 27, 2004
Commonwealth v. M.P.L. – Norfolk Superior Court

ATTEMPTED MURDER: NOLLE PROSEQUI
ASSAULT with INTENT TO MURDER: NOLLE PROSEQUI
ASSAULT & BATTERY WITH DANGEROUS WEAPON PROBATION
CARRYING A DANGEROUS WEAPON: PROBATION
ASSAULT WITH A DANGEROUS WEAPON: NOLLE PROSEQUI
ASSAULT AND BATTERY: NOLLE PROSEQUI

On July 12, 2003, Massachusetts State Police and Quincy Police were dispatched to a fight in progress involving knives and guns on Quincy Shore Drive in Quincy. Quincy Police immediately called for an ambulance for at least one stabbing victim. The victim had been stabbed in the stomach and stabbed at least six times in the back. Several witness (with identical accounts) told police that they actually witnessed the assault and stabbing. Once witness observed the subject pull out a knife and “flick” it open. The witnesses stated that the victim was walking along the sea wall when a group of black males approached and words were exchanged. Witnesses stated that a tall black male wearing a red t-shirt took something from his pocket, flick it open, and quickly advanced on the victim. This black male had the victim in a “bear hug” over the sea wall and the witnesses observed the black male stabbing the victim in the back and they could clearly see the handle of the knife. The victim yelled that he had been stabbed. Two other black males (one wearing a Rams football jersey and the other wearing a blue shirt and a black cap) held back the victim’s friends allowing the suspect to flee the scene. The three black males were detained at the Clam Shop. All seven witnesses provided written statements. The victim told police that the tall black male in the red t-shirt stabbed him several times in the back and once in the stomach. Police spoke with Attorney Gerald J. Noonan’s client at the Clam Shop. The client was described as a black male, tall, wearing a red t-shirt, and he had been covered with blood and police recovered a knife on his person. The second black party had a silver box-cutter and a bottle of Brandy on his person. The third black male also had a bottle of Brandy on his person. Photographs were taken of all three black suspects. In addition, the victim’s friends identified the Defendant as the party stabbing the victim and fleeing the scene. The victim identified the Defendant as the person who stabbed him. The victim testified before the Grand Jury that the Defendant stabbed him once in the stomach and six times in the back. Before the Grand Jury, the victim lifted his shirt and showed the jurors one stab wound to the stomach and six stab wounds to his back. The District Attorney was requesting that the Defendant serve a minimum of two years in prison.

Attorney Gerald J. Noonan retained a medical doctor to review the victim’s medical records. The medical doctor noted that there was no mention in the medical records as to the depth of the wounds sustained by the victim. Based upon his review of the medical records, the doctor found that the wounds did not penetrate any further than skin level. The doctor found that the wounds were superficial in nature and not viewed as serious by the medical staff. The victim was discharged from the hospital within 12 hours of admission showing that the medical staff was not concerned of the chance of any underlying serious injury. The doctor reviewed photographs of the injuries and described the wounds as “scratches.” The doctor opined that the victim’s injuries were actually consistent with the Defendant using the knife in self-defense against a violent aggressor. In addition, the doctor observed that the toxicology tests of the victim showed an elevated alcohol level. A copy of the medical doctor’s written report of his review of the victim’s medical records was provided to the Commonwealth.

Attorney Gerald J. Noonan retained a private investigator to interview a member of the Defendant’s party that was involved in the incident. This witness stated his party and the alleged victim’s party passed each other on the sea wall. This witness stated that as the groups passed each other the alleged victim threw his shoulder and hit the witness. The witness was pretty mad and said to the alleged victim, “What’s your fucking problem?” At that point, the alleged victim began swearing, making a scene, and putting his hands up into a fighting position. The witnesses group had already been walking down the sea wall when they heard the alleged victim swearing at the witness and making a scene. They stopped and turned around when they heard the alleged victim swearing at the witness. The witness stated that he smelled alcohol on the victim and thought he was either drunk or on drugs because he was out of control. The witness stated that the victim took off his shirt, threw it on the sidewalk, and was screaming that he wanted to fight. At this point, the Defendant stepped toward the alleged victim. During this time, the alleged victim raised his hands in a fighting position and said “let’s fight” or “let’s get it on.” The witness stated that the Defendant didn’t say a word until the alleged victim said to him, “Niggers want to fight too. I’ll fight all your nigger friends.” At this point, the witness’s group began yelling back at the alleged victim. The alleged victim then called the witness “a nigger lover.” The alleged victim called the Defendant a “nigger,” got in his face, and threw the first punch, swinging at the Defendant. The alleged victim got the Defendant in a headlock and began punching him in the head numerous times. During the fight, the alleged victim placed the Defendant in a chokehold. After the struggle, the witness heard the alleged victim say, “Nigger stabbed me.” The alleged victim then walked away with his friends unassisted and did not appear to be hurt or injured. The Defendant had a gash on his arm from hitting the sea wall during the struggle. As they left and walked away, the witness observed approximately 25-30 kids being led by the alleged victim walking down the sidewalk toward them and the alleged victim was calling them “Niggers.” The alleged victim’s group was armed with weapons, bats, sticks, pipes, 2×4’s, etc. At this point, the Defendant’s group fled. Once the police came, the alleged victim’s group dispersed and ran away. The witness claimed that the alleged victim was the aggressor, he was out of control, he was intoxicated, he was calling everyone “niggers,” he threw the first punch and placed the Defendant in a chokehold and that the Defendant was acting in self-defense. There were also two other female witnesses who could corroborate this version of events.

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan was able to get the District Attorney’s Office to Nolle Pross 4 of the 6 indictments. With respect to Indictment #3, Defendant was found Guilty and sentenced to two years in the house of correction suspended for three years and with respect to Indictment #4 the judge sentenced him to three years straight probation. The Commonwealth was pushing for two years committed time and Attorney Gerald J. Noonan was able to secure a strictly probationary sentence for his client on very serious charges.

January 9, 2001
Commonwealth v. S.K. – Brockton District Court

ASSAULT & BATTERY w/ DANGEROUS WEAPON: NOT GUILTY

On May 7, 1999, there was a large party in the woods behind the MSPCA in Brockton. There were many youths drinking and partying in the woods. There were approximately 80 people in attendance at the party. The alleged victim, a party goer, told police that he was beat up and “stomped on” in the woods at the party. The alleged victim told police that he was kicked and punched several times. The alleged victim provided the names of his attackers, including the Defendant’s name. The beating was vicious, violent, and severe. The alleged victim’s eye was permanently disfigured in the attack. Several of the co-defendants were charged with Mayhem, as there was evidence that the alleged victim’s eye was “put out or destroyed.” Records showed that the alleged victim’s vision, after the assault, was substantially reduced. The alleged victim identified the Defendant to police as one of the people kicking him while he was on the ground.

Attorney Gerald J. Noonan located many eyewitnesses to the attack in the woods. One eyewitness stated that she observed three people beating the alleged victim and kicking him while he was on the ground. This eyewitness did not see the Defendant beating, punching, or kicking the alleged victim. Another eyewitness stated that he observed several people beating the alleged victim. This eyewitness did not see the Defendant beating, punching or kicking the Defendant. Attorney Noonan interviewed 4 other witnesses who provided exculpatory information. Attorney Noonan obtained records showing that the alleged victim’s eyesight, without glasses, was extremely poor, which affected his ability to positively identify the Defendant as one of his attackers.

Attorney Gerald J. Noonan discovered information that the alleged victim was in possession of a knife and that he purportedly used the knife during the altercation. Attorney Gerald J. Noonan also discovered a taped telephone call in which the alleged victim recanted his statement to police. At trial, Attorney Noonan severed his client’s case from the three other co-defendants’ cases, as a joint trial of all four defendants would prejudice his client. Attorney Noonan’s client was a full-time student at the Massachusetts Maritime Academy and had no prior criminal record.

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan gets Not Guilty verdict on violent felony charge against Mass. Maritime Academy student with no criminal record.

May 12, 1995
Commonwealth v. Frantzy E. Therilus – Brockton Superior Court Docket No.: 94918-19

ARMED ASSAULT TO ROB: NOT GUILTY
ASSAULT & BATTERY w/ DANGEROUS WEAPON: NOT GUILTY

Defendant was charged with two other men under a theory of joint venture in a shooting. The victim testified that he was shot three times and a bullet still remains lodged in his back. The victim testified that he was robbed by knifepoint while making a phone call in the Westgate mall when a male grabbed his watch and ran. Afterwards, the victim went with his girlfriend to the market on Court Street. The victim observed a red jeep pull up. The victim saw a man standing 2-3 feet away from him holding a short black gun in his hand. The gunman demanded the victim’s gold chain but the victim refused. The gunman then handed the black gun to the Defendant. The victim tried to walk away when he heard shots and fell down and there was blood all over him. The victim felt he was going to die on the street. The victim was shot in the arm and in the back. The bullet was still lodged in his back. The victim was hospitalized for a month. Attorney Gerald J. Noonan examined a police officer at trial who interviewed the victim. Attorney Noonan asked Officer Carr, “Jusme (victim) told you Therilus never shot him, or threatened him.” The officer answered, “Yes.” The defense attorneys for the three defendants presented evidence from the Westgate mall showing that there were no records or videotape footage showing that the victim was robbed at the mall, as he claimed. Attorney Gerald J. Noonan presented evidence from the emergency room showing that the cause of the victim’s injuries was the result of a drive-by shooting, which contradicted the victim’s testimony that he was shot at close range outside the market.

  • “Victim testifies about being shot 3 times at close range.”
  • “Jury to begin deliberations in Brockton shooting trial.”
  • “Jury acquits three in shooting of Brockton man outside market.
January 19, 1995
Commonwealth v. G.K. – Fall River District Court

ASSAULT by DANGEROUS WEAPON: NOT GUILTY
ATTEMPT TO COMMIT A CRIME: NOT GUILTY

An Easton Police Officer was flagged down by a motorist in the parking lot of Christy’s Market. The motorist reported to the police officer that the driver of the vehicle behind her just threatened her with a machete knife. The officer obtained the license plate. The woman identified the Defendant as the man who threatened her with the machete. The woman claimed that she had just left the Taunton District Court after taking out charges against the Defendant for Annoying and Harassing Telephone Calls. She stated that when she was driving home she looked in her rear-view mirror and saw the Defendant traveling behind her. She stated that she observed the Defendant pointing the knife at her and motioning for her to pull over. She states that the Defendant then put the knife to his throat. She claimed that the Defendant was throwing rocks at her vehicle. She states that her vehicle was almost forced off the road by the Defendant. She then pulled into the party lot of Christy’s Market and flagged down the officer. The police stopped the Defendant’s vehicle and asked him to produce the knife. Defendant produced a fishing knife. Defendant denied threatening her with the knife. The Defendant explained to the officer that he had attempted to get a restraining order against the alleged victim because she has been harassing him. He stated that the alleged victim knows he has he has a knife. The police seized the knife from the Defendant’s vehicle.

ResultAfter a three-day jury trial, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan gets Not Guilty verdicts on all criminal charges against Firefighter.

January 31, 2019
Commonwealth v. N.J. – Brockton District Court

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.

January 28, 2019
Commonwealth v. R.A. – Wareham District Court

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.

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