Attorney Noel’s client was denied pre-trial bail. Attorney Noel filed a Petition for Specialized Review to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania alleging that the lower court’s denial of bail violated Article I, Section 14 of the Pennsylvania Constitution and Commonwealth v. Talley, a case decided by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania interpreting Article I, Section 14’s bail clause. Because the Commonwealth failed to offer “evident” proof or establish a “great presumption” that Attorney Noel’s client presented a danger to any person or the community, which could not be abated using any available bail conditions, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania reversed the lower court’s order denying her client bail.

Following a jury trial, the defendant was convicted of Aggravated Assault and Carrying a Firearm Without a License. Attorney Noel was retained to represent the defendant on appeal. Within 10 days of sentencing, Attorney Noel filed a post-sentence motion that would become the roadmap for the appeal to follow. In those motions and on appeal, Attorney Noel argued that the trial court’s jury instruction regarding the offense of Carrying a Firearm Without a License was legally deficient because it erroneously defined that crime as a strict liability offense. Additionally, Attorney Noel argued that the trial court’s erroneous instruction on the firearms offense irreparably tainted the jury’s verdict as to the offense of Aggravated Assault. The Superior Court of Pennsylvania adopted Attorney Noel’s arguments in full, vacated her client’s convictions, and remanded for a new trial.

Attorney Noel is back before the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania after that Court granted yet another Petition for Allowance of Appeal filed by Attorney Noel. This time, the Court is slated to decide important questions surrounding how much notice the Commonwealth is required to provide to criminal defendants of its intent to offer expert testimony regarding common victim responses and behaviors. Attorney Noel has also asked the Supreme Court decide whether the proposed expert must prepare, and the Commonwealth must disclose, a detailed report stating the subject matter on which the expert is expected to testify; the substance of the facts to which the expert is expected to testify; and a summary of the expert's opinions and the grounds for each opinion.

After being convicted by a jury of committing various sex offenses against a minor, the sentencing court imposed a term of imprisonment of ten to twenty years on a single count, involuntary deviate sexual intercourse, pursuant to a mandatory sentencing provision.  On appeal, Attorney Noel argued that the mandatory sentencing provision at issue had been declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania in 2016, and that the sentence imposed was therefore illegal.

After being convicted of rape and related offenses and sentenced to nearly 30 to 60 years in prison, Attorney Noel’s client appealed to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania.  On appeal, Attorney Noel argued that highly prejudicial testimony from a detective, which took the form of expert opinion evidence and which tended to impermissibly bolster the credibility of the accuser, was admitted against her client without the detective being properly qualified by the Commonwealth as an expert witness.  Finding that the testimony was not expert in nature, the Superior Court upheld the convictions.

Attorney Noel once again earned the attention of Pennsylvania’s highest court, this time after filing a petition for allowance of appeal on behalf of a client convicted of rape and related sex offenses.  On appeal, Attorney Noel sought a new trial for her client on the grounds that expert testimony was improperly admitted against him. 

Attorney Noel provided representation to a client who had been convicted of rape and related sexual offenses.  The client appealed his conviction and sentence to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, which remanded the case to the trial court for resentencing.  During the ensuing resentencing hearing at which Attorney Noel provided representation, the trial judge conducted a constitutionally inadequate resentencing hearing.

Attorney Noel’s client was convicted of endangering the welfare of a child for allegedly failing to report sexual abuse perpetrated by her husband.  The accuser had previously made three false sexual assault allegations against other people and the trial court prevented Attorney Noel’s client from introducing evidence of the accuser’s prior false allegations on the grounds that such evidence was barred by Pennsylvania’s Rape Shield Law.