|
May 16th 2013
Essex SUPERIOR Court/INDICTMENTS
Firearm Carrying with Ammunition Chapter 269 Section 10(n)
Drug, Possession to Distribute Class A Chapter 94C Section 32A (a)
Client was a high school student who was being watched by the Lynn Gang Task Force. According the Police, they saw client speaking with a high-ranking gang member who himself had been convicted of gun charges. Moments later, they arrested client with a Loaded .380 Handgun in his pocket and seventeen ecstasy pills. He was charged with a number of offenses, to include possession of a loaded firearm and drug distribution. Initially, the young man was charged as a juvenile, but soon after those charges was dismissed and he was recharged under the Youthful Offender Law. Under the Youthful Offender Law, he could be sentenced to State Prison. Client was released from custody after posting a substantial bail. After nearly three years of various hearings, motions and challenges to the evidence the case moved closer to trial. Attorney Barabino suppressed one piece of evidence, which prevented the Commonwealth from using the Defendants statement that he was a member of the “CRIPS”. Once that was decided, a trial date was scheduled. At the trial date, all the Commonwealths experts and the defense experts appeared as well as other witnesses. However, moments prior to the jury being selected, a deal was struck that allowed Client not to serve any jail time. Defendant was placed on a suspended sentence with no jail time served. The drugs had been excluded by agreement as they had been tainted by the “Dookham drug scandal” so that charge was dismissed.
RESULT: Motion to Suppress, ALLOWED. Client Avoids ANY Jail. Drug Distribution DISMISSED. |
|
May 8th 2013
Woburn District Court
Malicious Destruction of Property Chapter 266 Section 127
Malicious Destruction of Property Chapter 266 Section 127
Client, a junior in high school, faced two potential complaints Malicious Destruction of Property over $250.00. The police alleged that Client became angry and upset about being blamed for something he was not involved in. When Client became angry it was alleged that he went to a young woman’s home and threw large rocks at the home damaging the foundation. Moreover, it was alleged that he damaged the motor vehicle at that same home, with a cost of over $250.00. Both charges are felonies. Today, at the clerk's hearing, Attorney Barabino persuades the assistant clerk magistrate, with the assent of cooperative, professional and understanding law enforcement, to hold the complaint open for ninety days. As long as Client performs restitution, this case will be dismissed without ever appearing on Client's criminal record.
RESULT: Application for Complaint DISMISSED.
|
|
April 29th 2013
Waltham District Court
Motion to Seal Record Chapter 276 Section 100(c)
Some time ago, Attorney Barabino succeeded in gaining a dismissal of Assault and Battery charges against a very pleasant and remorseful foreign student studying here in the United States. Today, Attorney Barabino sought to have a petition to seal heard by that same court. Attorney Barabino persuades the judge to seal all records of this case. As a matter of law, Client may now truthfully answer on any job application that he has never been arrested for, or charged with, any crime.
RESULT: Petition to Seal ALLOWED.
|
|
April 22nd 2013
Cambridge District Court
Leave Scene of Property Damage Chapter 90, Section 24 (2)(a)
Client was a hard working professional with no prior criminal record. According to Police, they received a report that Client had hit another person vehicle and left the scene. Client had no recollection of making any contact with any other vehicle. In fact, his recollection was an out of control woman yelling at him while he was parked at a stoplight, which he ignored. Prior to the Defendant’s arraignment Attorney Barabino filed a Motion to Dismiss with a memorandum of law. This motion was allowed and the matter was remanded back to a Clerk Magistrate’s Hearing at a later date. At the Magistrate’s Hearing the Magistrate grilled the Defendant and sought yet an additional date to continue the hearing. At the second date, the State Police and Clerk Magistrate both took notice of the Defendant’s lack of criminal history, the statements of the parties and the insurance information declaring the woman was paid back all her out of pocket cost, the case was dismissed. No record of the incident will appear on the clients record, anywhere.
RESULT: No Criminal Complaint Issues at Clerk Magistrate Hearing, Case DISMISSED. |
|
April 8th 2013
Malden District Court
Motion to Seal Record Chapter 276 Section 100(c)
Attorney Barabino succeeded in persuading a judge to dismiss Assault and Battery charges against a prominent and well-respected doctor some time ago. Client again, rehired Attorney Barabino to petition the court to seal the matter. Today, Attorney Barabino persuades the judge to seal all records of this case. As a matter of law, Client may now truthfully answer on any job application that he has never been arrested for, or charged with, any crime.
RESULT: Petition to Seal ALLOWED.
|
|
April 2nd 2013
Woburn District Court
Leave Scene of Property Damage Chapter 90, Section 24 (2)(a)
Client was a father and hardworking employee of the U.S. Postal Service. According to Police he drove his vehicle in an erratic manner causing an accident. After the accident they alleged that he drive away without giving his information to the other driver as required by law. After consultation and review Attorney Barabino and client sought a trial date with the expectation that a not guilty verdict would be the result. However, when the accuser failed to show up for trial, Attorney Barabino simply requested the matter be dismissed, to which the judge agreed. Case Dismissed.
RESULT: Leaving the Scene of Property Damage, DISMISSED. |
|
March 29th 2013
Salem District Court
Leave Scene of Property Damage Chapter 90, Section 24 (2)(a)
2nd OFFENSE OUI- Liquor or .08% Chapter 90 Section 24(1) (a) (1)
According to Police, Client had rammed into a vehicle and left the scene of the accident. Police responded to the scene and immediately noticed the clients vehicle had damage similar that that which would be described. When Police pulled the vehicle over they noticed paint matched the vehicle that was hit. They also noticed paint on the other vehicle and noticed that it matched as well. The Police spoke to client and stated that his speech was slurred; he had to hold on to the side of the truck for balance, his eyes were bloodshot and glassy, his breath smelt like booze and he was unsteady on his feet. Moreover, the client had Budweiser cans opened and unopened strewn throughout the vehicle. Client simply wanted to gain his license back, but the District Attorney of this Essex county sought hard time, jail time. The Commonwealth presented five separate witnesses. At sentencing, the District Attorney for Essex County requested this hard working single father be sent to prison for two years suspended, and serve a full year committed in jail. In the end, the Judge agreed with Attorney Barabino and denied the Commonwealth request, and simply placed the Defendant on probation with a brief (14) day-impatient program. All the civil violation was found not responsible and the verdict on the Leaving the Scene was a clear and resounding Not Guilty.
RESULT: Leaving the Scene of Property Damage NOT GUILTY After Trial. All Civil Violations found NOT RESPONSIBLE. NO Jail for OUI Charge. |
|
March 20th 2013
Lowell District Court
Possession of Class “A” Heroin Chapter 94C Section 34
Client was a very pleasant young woman from a great family. However, unknown to her family she had developed an addiction to heroin—a very powerful addiction. Attorney Barabino filed a rather obscure and rarely used IIIE statute. Under IIIE, if the Defendant acknowledges their addiction, enter and complete rehabilitation, the charge against them will be dropped. The court allowed the motion to be filed nearly a year ago and after one year of negative drug screens provided to the court the case against the client was dismissed.
RESULT: Motion to Dismiss, ALLOWED, Case DISMISSED. |
|
March 15th 2013
Salem District Court
Reckless Endangerment of Child Chapter 265 Section 13L
Drug, Possession Class B (Cocaine) Chapter 94C Section 34
Possession of Class “A” Heroin Chapter 94C Section 34
Possession of Class “E” Substance Chapter 94C Section 34
Client was a hard working waitress who had been associated with drug use and abuse for some time. On the above date, she was charged with possession of Class A, B, and E drugs and Reckless Endangerment of a Child. According to Police, they got a 911 emergency call that two people were intoxicated and Police went to investigate. Upon doing so they saw a man who appeared to be intoxicated and client who was seated in a vehicle. According to Police there was evidence they were about to shoot heroin with their child in the back seat. Attorney Barabino challenged the method and extraction of client as unconstitutional and after hearing testimony, arguments and support case law the judge issued a decision, which allowed Motion to Suppress Evidence. Since the evidence is excluded the case will be dismissed. As a result, the evidence is excluded for this case and the case is to simply be dismissed.
RESULT: Motion to Suppress, ALLOWED, Case DISMISSED. |
|
March 5th 2013
Salem District Court
Disturbing the Peace Chapter 272 Section 53
Dangerous Weapon, Carry, Subsequent Offense Chapter 269 Section 10(B) & (D)
Client was a hard working electrician. He was charged with Disturbing the Peace and Possession of a Dangerous Weapon, Subsequent Offense. The second charge was required to prosecuted in the Superior Court and State Prison was mandatory. However, the District Attorney allowed it to remain in District Court and prosecuted as a first offender. Attorney Barabino filed a Motion to Dismiss the charge in its entirety. The motion, complete with a lengthy memorandum of law and supporting affidavit was provided to the court and a hearing was scheduled. After the motion, the court agreed, the motion should be allowed and the case dismissed. The District Attorney simply agreed to dismiss the Disturbing the Peace after the hearing.
RESULT: Motion to Dismiss, ALLOWED, Case DISMISSED. |
|
January 10th 2013
Haverhill District Court
Leaving the Scene of Personal Injury Chapter 90 Section 24
Client was a licensed electrician who was charged with leaving the scene of personal injury. According to Police, client was exiting onto a roadway when he struck a jogger with his vehicle. After contact was made, client undisputedly left the scene. Jogger was taken by Ambulance. At the magistrates hearing Attorney Barabino was able to provide perspective to all involved, which included phone calls, potential witnesses and maps of the area. Based on all the information presented it became clear that Client left the area, only briefly and only due to the aggressive conduct of the jogger after being struck. In the end, NO complaint was issued.
RESULT: Application for Complaint DISMISSED. |
|
December 20th 2012
Salem District Court
Drug, Possession to Distribute Class D Chapter 94C Section 32C(a)
Client was a young man with no criminal record. According to Police, Client was in a motor vehicle when Police approached and saw what they described as smoke emitting from the windows. The Police searched and interviewed all the people in the vehicle. During the search of the vehicle they discovered two scales, used for weighing marijuana and marijuana itself. The amount of marijuana combined with the scales and statements resulted in the arrest of client and another. A motion to suppress was filed and testimony was elicited from the arresting officers as well as the parties charged with this crime. After a hearing the court took the matter under advisement. At the next date, the court issued their ruling, declaring that the Police acted unconstitutionally and the evidence should be thrown out as inadmissible. As a result, the charges were dismissed.
RESULT: Motion to Suppress, ALLOWED, Case DISMISSED. |
|
December 13th 2012
Salem District Court
Leave Scene of Property Damage Chapter 90, Section 24 (2)(a)
Client was a hard working music teacher and single dad. According to Police, he was in a parking lot— and accidently hit another motor vehicle and purposely refused to stop. Client had no criminal history and an excellent driving record. The District Attorney’s main concern was the other party being made whole and that they had no out-of-pocket expenses. Once that was confirmed, they simply dismissed the charge with a two hundred dollar court cost---to which the Client was very pleased. Case Dismissed.
RESULT: Leaving the Scene of Property Damage, DISMISSED.
|
|
December 11th 2012
Boston Municipal Court
Unlawful Possession of a Firearm Chapter 269 Section 10(a)
Unlawful Possession of Ammunition Chapter 269 Section 10 (h)
Carrying a Loaded Firearm Chapter 269 Section 10(n)
Habitual Offender Statute Chapter 279 Section 25
Client was a hard working father and husband who had been standing on a sidewalk on Roxbury with several other men. Police arrived and searched all the people, including client. After they searched, client they discovered he possessed a loaded 9mm in his waistband. Client was arrested and charged with the above charges and appointed a public defender. The public defender did a great job of obtaining a dismissal of the Habitual Offender Law, which has exposed client to significant prison time. However, after nearly a year of litigating the case, Client sought Attorney Barabino to represent him on the above gun charges. After a through examination of the crime scene, witnesses and case law regarding search and seizure an extensive memorandum of law was drafted and finalized. On the day of the motion to Suppress, Commonwealth filed a Motion with the court to withdraw the case from prosecution. Case Closed.
RESULT: Motion to Suppress, Filed. Case DISMISSED. |
|
December 3rd 2012
Gloucester District Court
Drug, Possession to Distribute Class D Chapter 94C Section 32C(a)
Client, a young man in high school was charged with Distributing Marijuana. According to Police, Client was in a parking lot with another person, after hours, when Police performed a well being check. Once Police arrived, they noticed the odor of pot and other suspicious behavior. Police made Defendant exit the vehicle and located several separate bags of pot in his pocket; as well as nearly five hundred dollars cash. The Police arrested and charged client and Attorney Barabino began the criminal representation. An expert was hired with a specialty in Drug Distribution and several motions were filed to prepare for trial. Since it was expected that Attorney Barabino and client would only accept a complete dismissal or not guilty verdict, the case was litigated for nearly a year and a half. During one hearing Attorney Barabino sought suppression of evidence and that request was allowed by the Judge. With little expectation of success, the District Attorney simply dismissed the case. Attorney Barabino sought return of the Clients so called drug money and the court agreed and allowed the motion to return his property.
RESULT: Motion to Suppress, ALLOWED, Case DISMISSED. |
|
November 28st 2012
Ayer District Court
Probation Violation/Surrender Chapter 279 Section 3
Client was a college-educated professional already on probation for drug related offenses. During her period of probation it was alleged that she flipped a motor vehicle and left the scene. The Police Investigating the incident came to a conclusion that she was probably the operator of the motor vehicle-despite her repeated assertions that she was not. Moreover, the Police charged her with filing a false police report since they didn’t believe her statement that the car was stolen. As a result, a probation violation was found. At the final hearing a joint agreement to extend probation six months and she can keep her CWOF—meaning no conviction.
RESULT: Probation Extended with No Jail and No Conviction. |
|
November 24th 2012
Salem District Court
Unlicensed Operation of a Motor Vehicle Chapter 90 Section 10
Inspection Sticker Chapter 90 Section 20
Alcohol in Motor Vehicle, Possession Open Container Chapter 90 Section 24I
Client was an out of state resident who was driving in Massachusetts without a license. He was stopped by Police and charged with various offenses. According to the Police Report, Client was stopped initially due to his lack of Massachusetts license, a criminal offense. Once he was stopped he was charged with other crimes. Attorney Barabino reviewed all the reports and ticketing information processed by Police for this arrest. Upon a through review, he determined the tickets issued by Police were not in compliance with required regulations. As a result of the Police not following the proper requirements, he filed a Motion to Dismiss, along with a lengthy memorandum of law. The Court held a hearing to listen to the legal arguments presented by Attorney Barabino, at the conclusion of the heading, the Judge allowed Attorney Barabino’s motion to Dismiss the three charges.
RESULT: Motion to DISMISS, ALLOWED. All Three Charges DISMISSED. |
|
November 8th 2012
Salem District Court
Operating to Endanger Chapter 90 Section 24
Client was an out-of-state college student who was charged with operating to endanger. According to Police, Client was driving in the early morning hours when he drive through a stop sign and into several parked motor vehicles causing over one hundred thousand dollars of damage to two vehicles, a motorcycle and a portion of a home.
Result: Application for Complaint DISMISSED. |
|
October 9th 2012
Salem District Court
Attempt to Commit Crime Chapter 274 Section 6
Disorderly Conduct Chapter 272 Section 53
Client, a retired airlines employee was charged with attempting to commit a crime and disorderly conduct. According to Police, client had entered the hallway of an apartment building and repeatedly struck the door with her foot. The occupant watched this occur through her peephole and after increased concern, called police. Police then stopped the Defendant down the street from the apartment complex. When interviewed by Police, Client gave conflicting accounts of what occurred and she was arrested for attempting to break in to the apartment and disorderly conduct. At trial, the District Attorney attempted to modify the complaint to reflect a subsequent charge of disorderly conduct since she had been convicted before this date in a separate incident. The judge denied that request and the client had zero exposure of jail for that charge. After trial, the evidence of the witnesses failed to support a charge of breaking and entering and the client was acquitted.
RESULT: Client is NOT-GUILTY of Attempt to Commit a Crime Charge, Disorderly Charge Filed for a period of two Months. |
|
September 26th 2012
Malden District Court
Assault and Battery Chapter 265 Section 13
Client was a Professor of Psychiatry at well-known Massachusetts University. According to police, his ex-wife claimed that he struck both her and their daughter. As a result of these allegations client was charged with assault and battery. Client was adamant that nothing less than a dismissal or not guilty verdict be the result of this accusation. The case resulting is various claims and counterclaims, the Department of Social Services Investigations, restraining orders hearings and much preparation and investigation. The result is the day of trial the Commonwealth dismissed the case. The Investigation of the Department of Social Services also declined to find supporting evidence of abuse and his client file was cleared in that matter as well.
RESULT: Case DISMISSED
|
|
August 21nd 2012
Salem District Court
Assault and Battery Chapter 265 Section 15
Possession to Distribute Class “D” Chapter 94C Section 32(c)
Client was a landscaper who was in warrant status as a result of not reporting to his probation officer. Moreover, he was charged with new crimes of Assault and Battery and Distributing Class “D” (marijuana). Attorney Barabino brought to the straight to trial---little time to waste since there would be consequences from his probation officer if he was convicted of new charges. At trial, the Commonwealth was unable to secure the necessary witnesses to present their evidence and the Assault and Battery was dismissed. Attorney Barabino next filed what is called waiver of jury to allow the judge to hear the remaining evidence for distribution. Once that was complete the District Attorney simply assented that their probability of securing a verdict was low—so low that they agreed to dismiss the distribution charge in it entirety.
RESULT: Assault and Battery Charge DISMISSED Entirely. Distribution Charges DISMISSED.
|
|
August 2nd 2012
Woburn District Court
Assault and Battery Chapter 265 Section 15
According to Police, client and boyfriend had called police twice in a night. The first time police spoke with both the client and her boyfriend and left the home---assured that no further commotion with occur. When police were called the home a second time they noticed that the boyfriend had marks and scraps that were not visible before. The police then make inquiry to the client and after doing so were satisfied that she was the aggressor. As a result, they charged her with assault and battery. As a non-citizen, as dismissal was essential and an acquittal had to attained. At trial, the boyfriend, became “unavailable” as a result of a 5th amendment hearing resulting in a dismissal of the charge.
RESULT: 5th Amendment of Witness at Trial, Results in Assault and Battery Charge DISMISSED Entirely. |
|
July 18th 2012
Salem District Court
Assault and Battery Chapter 265 Section 15
Vandalize Property Chapter 266 Section 126A
Client, a former NHL Player and Vietnam Veteran was charged with assault and battery and vandalizing property. According to the police report, a young boy in the neighborhood was acting unruly and assaultive towards other young boys and girls. Client, witnessing this dangerous behavior took action by restraining the young boy—leaving a small mark and (potentially) ripping his shirt. Fortunately, a seasoned and experienced district attorney was assigned to the case, who after speaking and doing her own investigation determined that the actions of defendant should not be criminally prosecuted---and the case was dismissed.
RESULT: Both Charges DISMISSED. |
|
July 13th 2012
Sex Offender Registry Board
Level III Administrative Hearing
The Sex Offender Registry Board (SORB) categorized client, a father of two, as a Level III Sex Offender. When the Board determines that the risk of re-offense is high and the degree of dangerousness posed to the public is such that a substantial public safety interest is served by active dissemination, it gives a level 3 designations to the sex offender. The Level 3 status is devastating to the offender since it requires active public notification wherever the offender lives and employs. In the present case, Attorney Barabino conducted countless interviews and assembled all the relevant documentation for presentation to the SORB Board. After several weeks of waiting for the written decision all the parties were notified that client was REDUCED to a LEVEL II status---thereby not requiring public notification of his crimes.
RESULT: Client’s LEVEL III Status, LOWERED from LEVEL III to LEVEL II. |
|
June 29th 2012
Salem District Court
Drug, Possession to Distribute Class A Chapter 94C Section 32A (a)
Unlawful Drug Possession Chapter 94C Section 34
Drug Violation Near School/Park Chapter 94C 32 J
Client was employed in the construction field and work was slow. According to the Police, they saw client (whom they were familiar) pull behind another car that they were secretly watching. They observed client’s passenger gets out of the car and sell heroin to a young couple. The police were at the right time and the right place, in fact, the group of officers observing the transaction was from the Special Response Team (SRT), which consisted of experienced, knowledge officers. Their hunch was right---they witnessed a drug transaction. The police arrested all involved and client was charged with possession of heroin, possession of heroin with intent to distribute and possession with intent to distribute within a school zone. The last charge, intent to distribute within a school zone carries a two year house of correction jail sentence. That 2-year sentence is a MANDATORY one. When a charge is MANDATORY, that means no suspended sentence, house arrest or probation—the person must go to a correctional facility for two years (eligible for parole after one year). For some “mandatory” charges there are provisions for a suspended sentence---but not with a “school zone charge”. The case proceeded through the court system for nearly a year the other people that were arrested at the same time called (co-defendants) who were represented by other lawyers to admit guilt. Any admission of guilt for Attorney Barabino’s client was unacceptable---a decision he and his client made early on in the case. However, when prior to a hearing an offer of dismissing the school zone charge and the distribution charge and admitting to “sufficient facts” for the possession charge---client was all for it. In addition client forfeits his nearly thousand dollars in cash, which was located on his person. And if he stays out of trouble for a year his charge will be dismissed entirely.
RESULT: School Zone DISMISSED, Intent to Distribute DISMISSED, No Guilty Imposed on Possession Charge. |
|
June 26th 2012
Salem District Court
Drug, Possession to Distribute Class A Chapter 94C Section 32A (a)
Unlawful Drug Possession Chapter 94C Section 34
Drug Violation Near School/Park Chapter 94C 32 J
Negligent Operation of Motor Vehicle Chapter 90 Section 24(2)(a)
Speeding in Violation of Special Regulation Chapter 90 Section 18
License Suspended, Operation Motor Vehicle, Subsequent Offense Chapter 90 Section 23E
Client was recently licensed barber who was charged with several offenses. Those offenses, included Possession of Heroin, Possession of Heroin with the Intent to Distribute, School Zone/Park, Negligent Operation of a Motor Vehicle, Failure to Stop for Police, Driving on a Suspended License Subsequent Offense and related Civil infractions. According to Police, the saw Client driving and they knew from prior knowledge that he did not have an active license. They stated they were “very familiar” with client. The statement that they were very familiar with client was supported by the client’s former arrest for distribution and possession of drugs. When they hit the sirens to pull him over he took off and the police chased him for several streets until they caught him on a one way. After client was stopped, they arrested him and took him for booking. After the arrest they found ten (10) separate Baggies of what was heroin, packaged in a method consistent with distribution of the drug. Moreover, and very problematic was that the Police charged him with distributing the drugs in a school zone which carries a two-year house of correction sentence—mandatory—meaning no suspended sentence, no house arrest---you go to jail. After nearly a year of litigating the case and hiring an expert in distribution of drugs the day of trial came. At trial the Commonwealth had their own expert in drug distribution, an expert in school zone measurement, two police officer(s), a chemist from the State Police Crime Lab, and a representative from the Department of Registry of Motor Vehicles. Despite the ability to and desire to prove his clients innocence, a deal was offered that Client was ecstatic to receive. The deal included the Commonwealth dismissing OUTRIGHT the SCHOOL Zone Violation, DISMISSING the Possession Charge, REDUCING to Driving on a Suspended License from a SUBSEQUENT offense to a FIRST offense, a continuation without a finding on the Negligent Operation of a Motor Vehicle and NO Fine on the civil offenses.
RESULT: School Zone DISMISSED, Driving on a Suspended License, Subsequent Offense REDUCED to FIRST Offense, No Jail time for ANY CHARGE. |
|
May 24th 2012
Salem District Court
Assault and Battery Chapter 265 Section 15
Breaking and Entering in the Nighttime for Felony Chapter 266 Section 16
Vandalize Property Chapter 266 Section 126A
Vandalize Property Chapter 266 Section 126A
Intimidation of a Witness Chapter 268 Section 13b
Assault with a Dangerous Weapon Chapter 265 Section 15B
Client was a laid off manufacturing employee who had a rocky relationship with his daughter’s mother. According to Police and his police record, client has been accused of assaulting her in the past. In fact, she and her child were placed in a residential location paid for via the Commonwealth based on her alleged fear of client. On this occasion, she claimed that client was able to locate her from an unknown source and when he knocked on her door he pushed himself in the room. Once inside the room, he held her down on the bed and punched her twice in the face. After this struggle, the report stated that he broke two telephones and assaulted her child. Once over, he left the premises and she, exhausted and out of breath called 911. She informed the police what had occurred and they placed a warrant out for his arrest. Once arrested, a separate hearing was requested from the District Attorney’s office called a 58A. The purpose of the 58 was to see if bail should even be a consideration in this case. The District Attorney was successful and he was held until trial. Attorney Barabino and his client had one alternative for the District Attorney to consider. That was drop all the charges or fill in the jury box. No deals. We knew that what they had told police could be defended in court and there was another story to be told. At the day of trial, Attorney Barabino and his client rejected all offers. However, as the case was moments away from beginning there was one offer client could not say no too. The offer was 5 of 6 charges dropped in their entirety and the one charge of assault and battery is continued without a finding, which simply means the if he completes the term of probation the one charge will be dismissed.
RESULT: FIVE out of the SIX charges DROPPED in their entirety at TRIAL. The one remaining misdemeanor charge will be DISMISSED, if he completes the Probationary Term, which he agreed too. Client IMMMEDIATELY released from CUSTODY.
|
|
May 14th 2012
Malden District Court
Abuse Prevention Order Chapter 209A
Client was a hard working and all around easy- going single dad trying his best to be a father to his young daughter whom his ex-had custody. His ex went to Police stating she is in fear of serious imminent harm since client (she said) threatened him. At the 10-Day hearing clients ex- girlfriend made all the claims she had before and stated others such as their daughter came home with a bruised cheek and a chipped tooth. Attorney Barabino had both his client testify and clients mother---both who provided documentation to the court, which included text messages, and police reports. The judge credited both Attorney Barabino’s witnesses and as a result vacated the restraining order in its entirety.
RESULT: 10-DAY Hearing Outcome Results in FAVOR of Client, Restraining Order VACATED. |
|
April 12th 2012
Salem District Court
Assault with a Dangerous Weapon Chapter 265 Section 15B (b)
Disorderly Conduct Chapter 272 Section 53
Client was unemployed and was charged with Assault with a Dangerous Weapon as well as Disorderly Conduct. Police allege that he was purchasing some alcohol when he had a dispute with another gentleman and that mans female friend. Eventually a knife was alleged to be displayed by client and was arrested. Initially, Client told the police that he didn’t do anything criminal—yet when Police interviewed him again, he admitted threatening the other guy. However, when Police interviewed client a second time---he was not given his Miranda Rights. When that was discovered Attorney Barabino placed the case on for a motion to suppress all the statements made since the Police did not “mirandize” client. The court after reviewing and hearing testimony agreed with Attorney Barabino and allowed his motion to suppress the admission of guilt. At the day of trial, the witnesses recanted their testimony---and the District Attorney simply dropped the charge of Assault with a Dangerous Weapon.
RESULT: Motion to Suppress, ALLOWED, Charge of ASSAULT with a DANGEROUS WEAPON, Dropped. |
|
April 4th 2012
Salem District Court
Drug, Possession to Distribute Class A Chapter 94C Section 32A (a)
Drug Violation Near School/Park Chapter 94C 32 J
Client was a hard working tattoo artist who was charged with Possession with Intent to Distribute Heroin, within a school zone. The school zone charge is a minimum-mandatory sentence of two years in the house of correction. The Police alleged that they came into his home and viewed numerous drug- dealing equipment and unsold heroin. The Client had had a search warrant served on his premises merely a week before and the Police were eager to make a bust. In this case, the Police received a 911 call that an assault took place at the premises and used that as their part of their authority to enter the home of client. When they entered the home did not have a warrant, but did receive permission from roommates---but not enough permission to make the search legal. As a result, after nearly a year of litigating the case, Attorney Barabino along with the other co-defendants placed the case on for a motion to suppress the evidence that was recovered from police. The goal was to suppress the evidence (or throw out) all the drugs and drug dealing equipment from being used at trial because the search was not constitutionally legal. After the hearing, which the police and defendants testified, the court issued a three page-decision agreeing with Client that the Police Search was unconstitutional and all the evidence should be thrown out. As a result, the case against the client was dismissed on all counts.
RESULT: Motion to Suppress ALL the EVIDENCE, ALLOWED, Entire Case DISMISSED. |
|
March 9th 2012
Lawrence District Court
Threats to commit a crime Chapter 275 Section 2
Client, an employee of a local hospital was charged with Threats against the new girlfriend of her ex-boyfriend. The police alleged that she repeatedly called the woman with nearly fifty texts and finally a threat to hurt the other person and a voicemail stating that she was “on her way”. Client was very concerned since this would be her first criminal offense. Client took steps PRIOR to the hearing that included therapeutic treatment and aftercare for her unstable emotional state. Attorney Barabino presented the medical documentation along with an explanation of what occurred. After hearing from both parties, The Clerk Magistrate was in agreement that a resolution to keep it open for six months and that no complaint will be filed. The application for the complaint will be dismissed in six months. This case will never appear on Client's record, nor on any background check.
RESULT: Application for Complaint DISMISSED. |
|
March 1st 2012
Salem District Court
Abuse Prevention Order Chapter 209A
Client was a young man and father that was on a three year suspended sentence in New Hampshire for another crime—if he was convicted on the above offense of violating a restraining order he would not only be charged for his crime in Massachusetts but would also serve a three year sentence in New Hampshire. According to the Police, Client was seen leaving a restricted area that he ordered to stay away from. At trial, Attorney Barabino requested the court appoint an attorney to investigate if the complainant was lying to police. At the conclusion of the hearing, the complainant was allowed NOT to testify, leaving the Commonwealth with only one option---which was to dismiss the case.
RESULT: Restraining Order Charge DISMISSED on the Day of Trial. |
|
February 17th 2012
Salem District Court
2nd OFFENSE OUI- Liquor or .08% Chapter 90 Section 24(1) (a) (1)
Child Endangerment with Operating Under the Influence Chapter 90 Section 24V
Client was an employee with the Department of Defense. He was charged with Reckless Endangerment of a Child and Operating under the Influence of Alcohol 2nd Offense. According to the Police, the Clients ex-wife received a call from client that he was intoxicated and driving around with her child. She became frantic and searched for client. When she located him she argued with him driving the motor vehicle in the condition he was in and refused to give her the keys. She left (with her son) and called police since Client had insisted on driving. She cooperated with Police and Police found him a few hundred years down the road. They stated he failed the sobriety test and failed the Breathalyzer with a reading of 3.1%. 3.1% is nearly four times the legal limit. Prior to trial, Attorney Barabino made vigorous attempts to have the case thrown out in it entirety but was not successful. As the case moved forward he sent the case down for Motion to Dismiss hearing regarding the Reckless Endangerment charge (which carried Mandatory Jail time) and that Motion was ALLOWED. At the day of trial, every witness appeared leaving the client with the pre-trial option of a plea, which he eagerly sought. When the deal was argued before the Judge, the Commonwealth asked the judge to force client to attend parenting classes and install a Sobrietier Machine installed in his home. Attorney Barabino argued against it—and was successful. The judge Agreed with Attorney Barabino and the client left court---with what he wanted---No Jail.
RESULT: Reckless Endangerment of a Child, DISMISSED with Motion to Dismiss, ALLOWED and No Jail Time on 2nd Offense. |
|
February 13th 2012
Salem District Court
Assault and Battery Chapter 265 Section 15a
Intimidation of a Witness Chapter 268 Section 13b
Client was a non-citizen Computer Programmer with a bright future. As a married professional from Pakistan with children born in the United States he had every expectation of continuing his life and career in the U.S. He was charged with Assault and Battery and Intimidation of a Witness (his wife). The Police alleged that he assaulted her with a boot and refused to allow her to call police. Eventually, she went inside her home and called Police. When Police arrived she made damaging statements to Police and allowed them to take pictures of her injury. Attorney Barabino took the case to trial and since the wife was precluded from testifying as a result of a “spousal privilege” the case was dismissed entirely.
RESULT: Defendant’s Request to DISMISS, ALLOWED. No Record. |
|
February 8th 2012
Salem District Court
Assault with a Dangerous Weapon Chapter 265 Section 15B
Resisting Arrest Chapter 268 Section 32B
Client was hardworking professional and single dad who needed solid representation. He was charged with Assault with a Dangerous Weapon and Resisting Arrest. According to the Police report, Client brandished a gun when his ex-wife appeared at his door. She failed to mention to Police that the gun was a “pellet gun” and Police arrived in full force surrounding the home. The client didn’t help his case when he briefly left the home under the cover of night. Eventually turning himself in to Police and allowing the search to take place resulting in no one being hurt---but with him being charged with one felony offense. Attorney Barabino and Client agreed that they would not admit to anything—since he didn’t do anything wrong. They can take the case to trial or drop it. It took some time but eventually the plan succeeded.
RESULT: Commonwealth sought IMMEDIATE IMPRISONMENT under 58A-Dangerousness Statute resulting in a Full Evidentiary Hearing. After a Hearing and Sworn Testimony, Judge RELEASED Defendant, No Bail, No Conditions of Release. After Release, Attorney Barabino File a Motion to DISMISS, which the Judge ALLOWED After a Hearing, a Trial is Scheduled on Last Remaining Charge and Client Refuses Every Offer, Until the District Attorney Simply Agree to DISMISS in a YEAR, with NO Probation, And No Admission to any Act. |
|
February 1nd 2012
Lynn District Court
Malicious Destruction of Property Chapter 266 Section 127
Assault and Battery Chapter 265 Section 15
Assault Chapter 265 Section 13A
Breaking and Entering in the Nighttime for Felony Chapter 266 Section 16
Client was a kind and considerate businessman who was angry with his ex-wife. According to the police report, he went to his ex-wife’s home in the early morning hours while intoxicated and tried to kick in the door. His repeated kicks were unsuccessful in gaining her attention so he punched the door until his fist penetrated to the other side. Once he penetrated through the door he began to tear the door apart until he his upper body could fit through. At that time police alleged that he was able to grab the ex-wife’s friend arm leaving a bruise that they photographed. Police state that they approached the Defendant and he was his body was partially through the door and he refused to obey the commands and was pepper-sprayed. A 911 tape recorded by the police supported the entire fact pattern which police described. However, despite prior convictions for violating a restraining order and crimes of violence—no jail imposed.
RESULT: Client NOT Held on “Dangerousness Request/58A” and Allowed to be Released on a Electronic Monitoring Bracelet, Disposition Negotiated No Jail or Suspended Sentence and No Batterers Treatments or Anger Management. |
|
January 24rd 2012
Haverhill District Court
Reckless Endangerment of Child Chapter 265 Section 13L
Client was a professional educator and administrator was charged with the above crime. An admission to this crime or a plea or verdict of guilt would be a career ender. More importantly, Client justifiably thought that the allegations were not correct. According to the police report, a concerned citizen saw a young boy in an unlocked vehicle, alone with no parent nearby. When police arrived, they said the boy had not been fed his dinner and despite the mother coming to the vehicle to explain her brief absence they sought too investigate further. Upon investigating further, they found witnesses who said client had been inside doing shot(s) and another mixed drink for well over an hour. Which although true, was from earlier when child wasn’t with her. The Police gathered bar receipts and witnesses to make their claim that the leaving of the child was supportive of the charge of reckless endangerment. Attorney Barabino has already researched legal case law for this charge before her first court appearance and knew that the Commonwealth would not be successful at trial and that an acquittal was inevitable. However, to ensure that clients rights are preserved at every opportunity he filed a motion to dismiss with a memorandum of law and scheduled the matter for a hearing. At the hearing the court intently and patiently listened to all sides. At the end of the hearing the District Attorney agreed to simply leave the case open for three months with a condition that client not drink alcohol. If she did that the prosecution would stop/halt the matter and Dismiss in three months time.
RESULT: Prosecution Stopped, Agreement Three Months a DISMISSAL-Automatically. NO Criminal Record & NO Admission to Any Criminal Conduct. |
|
January 23rd 2012
Waltham District Court
Assault and Battery Chapter 265 Section 15a
Disorderly Conduct Chapter 272 Section 53
Client was with a fellow International Student and both were enrolled at a prestigious school outside Boston when they became involved in an incident with a young man and his girlfriend. According to the police report provided, the pair was heavily intoxicated when they approached a young couple and asked them for money. After asking for money they apparently began by shoving and an eventual fight landing one of the men in the hospital. The parents of client had a number of legitimate concerns, primarily that 1) there son would go to jail 2) there son would be found guilty of a crime 3) their son would have a criminal record and 4) their case would possibly prevent an application for U.S. Citizenship in the future. ---- After negotiating the case with an attentive and hard-working District Attorney office a resolution was agreed too that resulted in none of the above concerns. Basically, the young men work in a soup kitchen for a total of twenty hours; stay out of trouble and in six months the case is past history.
RESULT: Prosecution Stopped, Agreement to Complete Twenty Hours Community Service and Pay $100.00 And After Six Months a DISMISSAL-Automatically. |
|
June 24th 2011
Lynn District Court
Drug, Obtain by Fraud Chapter 94C Section 33(b)
Conspiracy to Violate Drug Law Chapter 94C Section 40
Probation Violation/Surrender Chapter 279 Section 3
Client was on probation and the probation agreement included a suspended sentence. A suspended sentence is a sentence to jail but not imposed unless the person is charged with a new crime. In this case client did commit a new crime. His new crime included a prescription-writing scheme in which he falsified a prescription so he could obtain a narcotic based prescription. He did so and was videotaped picking up the drugs. Attorney Barabino negotiated with Probation combined with detailed supporting documentation allowing for an agreement with probation that would allow for client not to have his sentence imposed. Client appeared with Attorney Barabino before the judge and with the agreement with probation and no jail sentence was imposed on either case.
RESULT: Suspended Sentence Is Not Imposed and No Jail Time on Either Case.
|
|
April 3rd 2011
Salem District Court
Probation Violation/Surrender Chapter 279 Section 3
Probation sought drug treatment and aftercare. The probation officer sought committed jail time and fought aggressively to get it. Attorney Barabino refused to allow his client to admit to acts, which were untrue, a hearing was sought---they challenged the evidence and the credibility of the probation case. Attorney Barabino crossed examined the probation officer---placed his client on the stand and after the hearing the judge refuse to enter CWOF NO Jail and limited aftercare.
RESULT: No Jail, No Conviction On HIs Record, Released From Custody.
|
|
November 8th 2011
Peabody District Court
Lewdness, Open and Gross Chapter 272 Section 16
Lewdness, Open and Gross Chapter 272 Section 16
According to Police, a witness saw client pull his penis out of his pants when she drove by him. Then the witness saw Client again and once again he repeated the act. Police located and arrested client and placed two sex charges against him. If client was found guilty of the charges he would surely have been required to register as a sex offender (SORB) aside from any imprisonment---and potential deportation—as he was not a U.S. Citizen. Moreover, client had previously been charged with Criminal Harassment, Accosting, Lewd and Lascivious Behavior, Open and Gross, Peeping Tom and other non-sex crimes. Attorney Barabino had no choice but to mark it up for trial as the Commonwealth would be seeking the maximum penalties. However, once all parties appeared ready at trial the Commonwealth was unable to secure the presence of that key eyewitness---resulted in a request from Attorney Barabino to Dismiss the charges, which was allowed.
RESULT: Both Charges DISMISSED, No Record of Sex Charges, No Sex Offender Registration.
|
|
November 10th 2011
Salem District Court
Drug, Possession to Distribute Class A Chapter 94C Section 32A (a)
Drug Violation Near School/Park Chapter 94C 32 J
Law Enforcement was watching Client as he moved in and out of a motor vehicle that they had been monitoring. As they observed Client and other known parties enter and exit motor vehicles they moved in arrested all the parties. Client was charged with a distributing heroin in a school zone as well as possession to distribute heroin. The school zone violation requires a minimum two-year house of correction prison sentence and the distribution charge would be on and after time---prison time. In this case on and after prison time was a real possibility---almost a certainty. Client had a six page “rap sheet” detailing prior convictions for larceny, receiving stolen property, breaking and entering, drug possession, resisting arrest, possession to distribute heroin, possession to distribute in a school zone and conspiracy, among others. In challenging the charges, Attorney Barabino filed a memorandum detailing the factors that should demand a dismissal of the charges. That memorandum, along with a motion and relevant case law required one result---that the motion to Dismiss all the charges should be allowed, and the District Attorney agreed to the motion moments prior to starting the formal hearing.
RESULT: Motion to Dismiss Both Charges, Motion ALLOWED Case DISMISSED.
|
|
November 17th 2011
Peabody District Court
Vandalize Property Chapter 266 Section 126A
Tagging Chapter 266 Section 126B
Vandalize Property Chapter 266 Section 126A
Tagging Chapter 266 Section 126B
Client was charged with spray painting or “tagging” several different places in the city of Peabody. The Client has denied any involvement and the police had no evidence to support a conviction. Normally, the District Attorney wouldn’t even allow such a case to go forward—but with a prior charge in Lawrence---he was identified as a “Tagger” and the District Attorney was prepared to introduce prior bad acts of his tagging—from Lawrence Police Officers. A simply case initially—but in the end, fairly complex. Ultimately, a trial was scheduled and both Attorney Barabino and the District Attorney answered ready for trial. As the case was about to get underway last minute negotiations resulted in a straight dismissal of the charges if the client paid three hundred dollars. After a brief discussion the client, he was eager to walk out of court for multiple felony counts---for the restitution of three hundred dollars.
RESULT: All Felony and Misdemeanor Counts DISMISSED at Trial, upon Payment of Three Hundred Dollars in Restitution |
|
November 7th 2011
Salem District Court
Malicious Destruction of Property Chapter 266 Section 127
Assault with a Dangerous Weapon Chapter 265 Section 15B
Client was high-valued government manager with the U.S. Air Force--employed as a civilian. His job entailed National Security details and any conviction would likely result in a revocation of his secret clearance. A revocation of his security clearance would likely his termination from his career. According tothe Police, client went to a home a person he had fought with earlier in the evening. The Police allege that the client took out a baseball bat and assaulted complainant and damaged his car. The client was with several other friends all who settled the matter prior to trial. Attorney Barabino’s client refused to bepressure dinto any deal and wanted his record clean. His accuser earnestly took the witness stand, which resulted in several inconsistent statements, which damaged the complainant’s story. Moreover, Attorney Barabino’s client also took the stand and at the end there was justice---both counts not guilty.
RESULT: Verdict NOT GUILTY, All Counts |
|
December 7th 2011Salem District Court
Malicious Destruction of Property Chapter 266 Section 127
Malicious Destruction of Property Chapter 266 Section 127
Client was charged with Malicious Destruction of Property over $250.00. According to the Police he sent threatening text to the mother of his children early in the A.M. hours. Soon after the accuser said she saw Client outside her home walking back and forth and when she went to huddle her children into a room a brick was thrown threw her window-shattering the window. She immediately called 911 and reported the incident. When Police arrived they noticed her car windshield was also broken. Client was charged with Felony counts each that carried a up too a two-year house of correction sentence. A real possibility ofeach sentence being imposed to there fullest since Client has a seven page record that listed convictions on various crimes of violence---as well as several restraining orders. The District Attorney zealously (yet fairly and professionally) pursued the case---but she could not rehabilitate the evidence that she was given since ---in the end---the attentive and alert jury rendered a verdict of not guilty on both counts.
RESULT: Jury Verdict NOT GUILTY, Both Counts, Client Released From Custody. |
|
November 18th 2011
Salem District Court
Client was a known drug user who was seen by Police in a high crime area. Their instincts were that he
was about to inject heroin or another drug. They approached Client and saw a syringe in his hand, and nearby a spoon and a bottle cap filled with water. All these items were consistent with elicit drug use.When Police searched his vehicle they found two “twist” which were consistent with 1) Cocaine and 2) Heroin based on the appearance and packaging of the items. Since Client had been charged with Class B earlier in his life, this charge was a subsequent offense---a greater penalty. However, no penalties were imposed since---the Client was found Not Guilty of Both Charges after trial.
RESULT: Both Charges Result in NOT GUILTY after Trial. |
|
November 22nd 2011
Haverhill District Court
According to Police, Client walked over to accuser and pulled his earring out of his ear resulting in the accuser’s ear being torn. The issue of the actual tearing of the ear was not in dispute, since the person was taken in an ambulance and his injuries were photographed. The grotesque pictures showed the
persons ear dangling in two pieces. However, the means, motive and intent of the Client were not clear or stated. In fact, upon an immediate review of Clients body, it appeared that he was clearly struck multiple times---consistent with a person defending himself---as Client has consistently stated. Since Mayhem
is a superior court charge and a grand jury had to be convened to review that particular Charge Attorney Barabino immediately forwarded the photographs to the District Attorney so they could present that evidence. Otherwise, the one-sided (and secret) grand jury proceedings would be considered without his
position ever being told. In the end, the District Attorney elected to withdraw the mayhem charge in its entirety. Attorney Barabino scheduled the remaining charge for a jury trial and without the necessary witness from the Commonwealth, the charge could not be prosecuted and the final charge, was Dismissed. NoJail, No Conviction, No Probation or Admission to any crime.
RESULT: Mayhem Charge Withdrawn from Prosecution Entirely, Missing Witness At Trial Results in Assault and Battery Charge DISMISSED Entirely. |
|
August 23nd 2011
Essex SUPERIOR Court/INDICTMENTS
Assault with a Dangerous Weapon Chapter 265 Section 15B
Armed Robbery Chapter 265 Section 17
Police allege that client and his friend went up to another, punched and kicked him repeatedly and eventually stripped him of his gold necklace and eighty dollars. After nearly a year of hearings and investigations into the case, it was determined that another version of events could be true. A trial was scheduled and the District Attorney announced they were simply dropping the Armed Robbery if a plea was accepted. The plea involved NO committed time---and NO Probation Conditions.
RESULT: Armed Robbery DROPPED by District Attorney, PLEA with NO COMMITTED TIME on Assault with a Dangerous Weapon.
|
|
August 17th 2011
Malden District Court
Assault Chapter 265 Section 13A
Client was a non-citizen Computer Programmer with a bright future. He came to the United States and was staying here on a H-1-B VISA-and he wanted to stay in good standing with that status. Client was charged with Assault after the Police took a report of him hitting his girlfriend. The Police stated that the Complainant had dried blood on her lip and redness on her face. The charge of Assault was to be upgraded by the District Attorney because of the physical contact alleged. However, after consulting with all the parties Attorney Barabino drafted a Memorandum of Disposition, which was essentially a written background of the Clients Background as well as an Accord and Satisfaction. The Accord and Satisfaction motion allows for judges in some instances to allow for a dismissal of charges—even over the District Attorney’s objection. In this case the District Attorney objected, but the judge ACCEPTED the Accord and Satisfaction. As a result, the case is DISMISSED.
RESULT: Motion for Accord and Satisfaction, ALLOWED. Case Dismissed. |
|
August 8th 2011
Salem District Court
Drug, Possession to Distribute Class B Chapter 94C Section 32A (a)
Client was caught driving his vehicle without a license. However, the problem was the Cocaine that was found under his seat. After police located the Cocaine they also found a cache of forged identifications cards that are often sold to illegal aliens. Moreover, client would be faced with potential deportation if he entered a plea if he admitted to the forged documentation. Attorney Barabino filed several substantive motions while launching an investigation into who could plant this evidence. Over a period of nearly a year and a half, several challenges were made the admissibility of the evidence. And one of those motions---a motion to allow the identity of the informant who told police that the Defendant would actually have cocaine WAS Allowed. An exhaustive search provided the Defendant with information that supported the claim that he was setup by an informant. Moreover, Attorney Barabino had his investigator interview several witnesses at client’s work-thereby uncovering additional exculpatory (helpful information). With this new information as well as other public documentation that was uncovered by Attorney Barabino the District Attorney simply agreed that the Defendant was the victim and dropped all the charges.
RESULT: Motion to Allow the Identity of the Informant, ALLOWED, Case DISMISSED. |
|
August 3rd 2011
Haverhill District Court
Lawrence District Court
BB Gun/Air Rifle Discharge Chapter 269 Section 12B
Malicious Destruction of Property Chapter 266 Section 127
Probation Violation/Surrender Chapter 279 Section 3
Client sought to enlist in the Marine Corps, but he had other battles that he had to fight at home. One such battle was being found with a loaded BB-Pistol, around 4:30 in the morning, and just moments after some unidentified person was seen shooting a BB Gun into a nearby home. The homeowner was awaken by the BB’s hitting and breaking the windowpane and became alarmed for several reasons to include the homeowners baby’s who was sleeping by their side. After seeing the individual shooting their window they called 911, which happened to be when client was walking home from a party. An arrest was made and charges brought. Client was held on Probation Detainer and Probation department was seeking committed time. Then Attorney Barabino took over and the probation matter ended with NO conviction and no committed sentence. As far as the initial charges Attorney Barabino placed the case on for a motion to suppress the evidence---but it was not needed. The District Attorney agreed to dismiss the Felony Charge and place the Defendant on Probation, unsupervised for six months. Semper Fidelis.
RESULT: Client Receives NO Conviction on Probation Matter, New Case Has Felony Charge DISMISSED and Client is on Administrative Probation with No Conviction(s). |
|
July 19th 2011
Peabody District Court
Breaking and Entering with Intent to Commit a Misdemeanor Chapter 266 Section 16A
Client was an eager to apply for his U.S. Citizenship and didn’t need a reckless indiscretion holding him back. Since there are some charges that can impede an application for admission to U.S. Citizenship we knew that if any deal would be struck it would be when the jury was sworn in and the District Attorney had all their witnesses. The day of trial came---and the District Attorney had their witnesses and then some. The facts were even worse that anticipated. Quite simply---the fresh footprints in the snow leading into the building where they were found went in one direction (In the locked room). Moment’s prior to trial, Attorney Barabino negotiated a straight dismissal of the Breaking and Entering charge and disposition of the trespassing charge that didn’t include a conviction—a win for citizenship application. One co-defendant wasn’t so lucky—she opted to challenge and a charge and a verdict of guilty entered for her. No so, for Attorney Barabino’s Client. He leaves court with NO Conviction.
RESULT: Client has NO Immigration Consequences and NO Conviction.
|
|
June 24th 2011
Lynn District Court
Drug, Obtain by Fraud Chapter 94C Section 33(b)
Conspiracy to Violate Drug Law Chapter 94C Section 40
Probation Violation/Surrender Chapter 279 Section 3
Client was on probation and the probation agreement included a suspended sentence. A suspended sentence is a sentence to jail but not imposed unless the person is charged with a new crime. In this case client did commit a new crime. His new crime included a prescription-writing scheme in which he falsified a prescription so he could obtain a narcotic based prescription. He did so and was videotaped picking up the drugs. Attorney Barabino negotiated with Probation combined with detailed supporting documentation allowing for an agreement with probation that would allow for client not to have his sentence imposed. Client appeared with Attorney Barabino before the judge and with the agreement with probation and no jail sentence was imposed on either case.
RESULT: Suspended Sentence Is Not Imposed and No Jail Time on Either Case. |
|
May 3rd 2011
Lynn District
Armed Robbery Chapter 265 Section 17
Client was an upstanding high school senior who, according to police was dealing weed on the side. According to Police, Client went to the home of a drug dealer with several others and demanded drugs at gunpoint. The case was placed in for a Probable Cause date, several times for the purposes of the Indicting the Client. After several attempts, The District Attorney was unable to secure their witnesses for the hearing which allowed the Defense to request a dismissal from the judge---and that dismissal was granted.
RESULT: Case DISMISSED |
|
April 3rd 2011
Probation Violation/Surrender Chapter 279 Section 3
Probation sought drug treatment and aftercare. The probation officer sought committed jail time and fought aggressively to get it. Attorney Barabino refused to allow his client to admit to acts, which were untrue, a hearing was sought---they challenged the evidence and the credibility of the probation case. Attorney Barabino crossed examined the probation officer---placed his client on the stand and after the hearing the judge refuse to enter CWOF NO Jail and limited aftercare.
RESULT: No Jail, No Conviction On HIs Record, Released From Custody. |
|
July 8th 2010
Lynn District Court
OUI- Liquor or .08% Chapter 90 Section 24(1) (a) (1)
Negligent Operation of Motor Vehicle Chapter 90 Section 24(2)(a)
Marked Lanes Violation Chapter 89 Section 4(a)
According to Police, Client drives past them speeding, and negligently drove through a stop sign. After police stopped client the standard sobriety test were given and police thought the result were unacceptable. The police administrated a Breath test where client responded, “yeah, I’ll take it but I’m going to be drunk”. He was legally intoxicated according to that test and the second test at the police station confirmed it. The clients question from the beginning was, I did it---now how do I fix it and get my license back. Once client came to Attorney Barabino he had already been arraigned and needed representation. Attorney Barabino filed a motion to have the case heard with six days of hiring—and disposed of the case four days after than in court. In court, Attorney Barabino negotiated terms that allowed a DISMISSAL on the Negligent Operation of a Motor Vehicle, and a NOT RESPONSIBLE on the Speeding Violation and the OUI charge was given a twelve month probation period that will allow a dismissal of the charges after one year.
RESULT: Client has a Chapter 90 Section 24D Disposition will the shortest probation period allowed by law, DISMISSED Negligent Operation of a Motor Vehicle and NOT RESPONSIBLE on the SPEEDING TICKET. |
|
July 7th 2010
Salem District Court
Shoplifting $100+ by Asportation Chapter 266 Section 30A
According to the Security Guards at a local Department Store, Attorney Barabino’s client was walked into the store with her sister and approached a display of merchandise. They selected children’s clothes and shoes, removed the tags and attempted to conceal the items after removing the tags from the items. The evidence was clear that they committed the act of shoplifting. In addition to the expected testimony of the store security officer there was videotape of the client and her sister committing the acts. A deal had to be struck with the prosecutors and a major concern was any admission to a crime could have immigrations consequences. After discussing the matter with the District Attorney an agreement was struck to allow no admission to a crime and simply pay back the money for the items. If client stay out of trouble for six months the case was simply be dismissed. And most importantly, it will be dismissed with no admission to the criminal act.
RESULT: pays $239.98 and admits to NO crime, with NO immigration Consequences. |
|
June 24th 2010
Boston Municipal Court
Larceny over $250.00 Chapter 266 Section 30
Police officers responded to Barney of New York in the Back Bay for report of a shoplifter. Upon arrival officers spoke to store security who stated she watched a woman later identified as attorney Barabino’ client walk into Barneys-and walk directly into the fitting rooms. Security reported that she took two dresses that were already in the dressing room, placed the two dresses in her pocketbook and proceeded to leave the store without paying for them. Security believed that she was working with another female who had stolen from Barney’s in the past. The two dresses were valued at nearly $3,685.00. The dresses were given back to Barneys. Client, a Russian Immigrant living in New York City had various concerns about the ramification and consequences of such serious charge. Moreover, the store had client videotaped doing the acts which security had witnessed. Attorney Barabino discussed the matter with the Prosecution several times to fashion a disposition. The result of the discussion was very favorable to Attorney Barabino’ client. She walked into court on the very next court date, paid restitution on the amount of the items and was did not have to admit to any crime.
RESULT: Client pays $3,685.00 to Barneys of New York and AVOIDS admitting to a FELONY OR a MISDEMEANOR. No Probation or Immigration Consequences for Client. |
|
May 13th 2010
Peabody District Court
Assault and Battery Chapter 265 Section 15
Client was alleged to have called his pregnant girlfriend to her mother home to retrieve jewelry that he purchased for her and officially break up the relationship. His soon- to- be ex- girlfriend alleged that he slapped her on the face before he left. She also made other statements that resulted in a questionable accusation. Nonetheless, the police arrested him for domestic assault and battery. Attorney Barabino put his investigator on the case and his investigator interviewed the woman who made these accusations. She decided that she was going to tell the truth and proceeded to sign a sworn statement that supported the Defendants assertion that he is truly innocent. After answering ready for trial the case could not proceed as the victim was not present to testify.
RESULT: Case DISMISSED. |
|
May 4th 2010
Lowell Juvenile Court
False Bomb Threat Chapter 269 Section 14
Disturbing a School Assembly Chapter 272 Section 40
According to the police report, client/student was in the female bathroom when another girl asked for her lipstick. Once in her hand the other girl proceeded to write out a specific bomb threat on the wall of the bathroom. As a result of the written threat, the school authorities were notified and took precautionary measures which resulted in a major disruption to the school. The measures that had to be taken included a full evacuation and securing of the building. Local Police and Fire Rescue where called as a result of the threat. Under the joint venture theory of criminal prosecution the Commonwealth could attempt to convict client just on her limited role in the bathroom. However, more problematic would have been her alleged statements to other students that she was the one who wrote the statement as well. Also, the girl in the bathroom blamed our client as well. Nonetheless, the school proceeded with long term suspension and the police summonsed her to a clerk magistrate's hearing. Working with all involved Attorney Barabino represented the juvenile at the Clerk Magistrate's hearing. Several conditions and obligations were placed in the client and in return the clerk will not formally file the complaint in court. Client never appears before a judge. This case will therefore never appear on her criminal record.
RESULT: Application for Complaint Never Filed in COURT, Case to be DISMISSED |
|
April 29th 2010
Salem District Court
Drug, Possession Class B (Cocaine) Chapter 94C Section 34
Resisting Arrest Chapter 268 Section 32B
According to police, while on patrol in a high-crime area they noticed a person transfer something to client. The other individual was person of high interest because of unsubstantiated allegations of prior drug dealing. Police asked Defendant what he was doing and what was in his hand. He showed police the other hand and after repeated questioning from police he assented to their request and showed them a small baggie of cocaine. Client was irritated and according to police resisted arrest when they attempted to place the cuffs on him. Attorney Barabino challenged the constitutionally of the search. A hearing was scheduled and the officer testified to what he saw and when he saw it. Attorney Barabino crossed -examined the officer challenging his observations and actions during the arrest. After the hearing and supplemental legal memorandums the judge ruled that any evidence that was seen after the initial arrest CANNOT be used at trial and a dismissal will be the only remedy for the District Attorney. Although the District Attorney seeks to have an appellate court review the judge’s findings, it is inevitable that this case will be dismissed.
RESULT: Motion to Suppress ALLOWED, Case will be DISMISSED |
|
April 29th 2010
Salem District Court
Larceny over 250.00 Chapter 266 Section 30(1)
According to the police report, Client was caught by store security stealing several items totaling over 250.00 (a felony charge). Client admitted to police her wrongdoing and the evidence was obvious and glaring. Negotiation with the District Attorney was the only option. However, the District Attorney sought the maximum sentence of two years in the house of correction sentence COMMITTED. Committed means that they wanted her to be in jail with no suspended sentence or probation. The probable harness to their recommendation was the result of the client’s prior record of similar offenses with committed jail time. Attorney Barabino took the client before a judge asking for straight probation (administrative). Administrative probation would allow her NOT to have to meet with a probation officer or the need the fulfill any related requirements. After Attorney Barabino explained the client’s background, history and previous road to rehabilitation and as a result he decided to accept Attorney Barabino request for one year of probation---no jail time and NO probation requirements.
RESULT: Client AVOIDS TWO YEAR House of Correction Jail Sentence. |
|
April 6th 2010
Peabody District Court
Assault and Battery Chapter 265 Section 13
According to Police, there was a call of a despondent female. The female alleged that she went to Client's home and when she was at the home they got into a verbal argument. She told the police that when she went to leave the apartment he grabbed her wrist and twisted it as he escorted her out of the apartment. Attorney Barabino and his client decided there was no disposition other than Not-Guilty or Dismissal that would be acceptable- since he denied ever using excessive force. After the necessary pre-trial preparation and defense investigation the case was marked ready for trial and on the day of trial the Commonwealth agreed to dismiss client's case against him and at the same time enter a mutually satisfying disposition in a separate case involving the same parties in which the Client was the victim.
RESULT: Case DISMISSED |
|
March 3rd 2010
Salem District Court
Assault with a Dangerous Weapon Chapter 265 Section 15B (b)
According to Police, Client was alleged to be drinking around a fire in a backyard when he grabbed a cinder block and threw at a fellow partygoer’s jaw. The impact of the cinder block resulted in knocking the person unconscious and leaving him with a deep laceration on his chin. As a result of Client’s actions, victim’s friend came to his aid and began punching client in his face. The repeated blows to victims face resulted in a broken nose and loss of blood. The police also maintained that Client was physically able to retaliate against victim’s friend by hitting him with a chair. After this chaotic event client was charged with the above crimes. After arraignment, Attorney Barabino filed charges against the other two parties. The application for charges was denied by the clerk of the court. Attorney Barabino filed an appeal and his appeal was successful for one of the two other involved parties. The case proceeded forward to eventual trial. At trial, one of the two parties was unavailable resulting in a dismissal of one of the charges. Insofar as the second charge, Attorney Barabino’ client asserted his 5th Amendment in exchange for the other party asserted their 5th amendment rights. The result of the process concluded in both charges against client becoming dismissed.
RESULT: Case DISMISSED |
|
February 25th 2010
Malden District Court
Negligent Operation of Motor Vehicle Chapter 90 Section 24(2) (a)
According to Police, Client traveled through a red light. After proceeding through the red light Client traveled past a cross walk while a pedestrian was attempting to cross the street. After this fact summary was witnessed by the police officer he stopped the Client and charged him with the above crime---as well as an IMMEDIATE THREAT to the Registry of Motor Vehicles—thus resulting in an automatic license suspension. Attorney Barabino entered into numerous negotiation sessions with the District Attorney prior to arraignment. After an agreement of the terms, Attorney Barabino walked into court and brought the case to conclusion on the same day. The result was to impose pre-trial probation for only twelve months – and the Client therefore admits to no wrongdoing and -- as long as he successfully complies with the terms of his pre-trial probation -- the case will be dismissed with no repercussions for Client's record.
RESULT: Case DISMISSED |
|
February 17th 2010
Salem District Court
Assault and Battery Chapter 265 Section 13(a)
Threats to commit a crime Chapter 275 Section 2
Intimidation of a Witness Chapter 268 Section 13b
Disturbing the Peace Chapter 272 Section 53
Client was charged with the above charges after police alleged that a person reported that his girlfriend had been choked by him earlier in the evening. During this alleged event it was reported to police that the defendant kicked her door resulting in damage. The value of the door was estimated to worth nearly one thousand dollars. The girlfriend was also charged for her conduct during the police investigation. Attorney Barabino was able to negotiate a dismissal for the three of the four charges, since the victim was unavailable to testify due to her charges. With the girlfriend fully participating with the defense, Attorney Barabino placed the remaining charge on for a trial before a judge. At the trial the required witness did not appear and as a result a dismissal was requested and granted by the judge.
RESULT: Every Charge DISMISSED and Client Does Not Have to Pay Any RESTITUTION for the Damaged Door. |
|
January 8th 2010
Salem District Court
Probation Violation/Surrender Chapter 279 Section 3
Client was on probation with an Eighteen (18) month suspended sentence when the Probation Department violated him as a result of a new charge. Client was released during the period of the initial violation notice and the final hearing as opposed to begin held in custody. During the period of the initial hearing and the final hearing attorney Barabino investigated the facts of the violation which was leaving the scene of property damage. After investigation and negotiation with Probation it was clear with certified documentation that client could not have been the operator of the vehicle and Probation agreed to withdraw the violation.
RESULT: Probation Agrees to Withdraw Violation. |
|
November 27th 2009
Boston Municipal Court
Clerks Hearing/Magistrate
Drug, Possession Class B (Percocet) Chapter 94C Section 34
Client was a Financial Management Analyst working in Boston when he was seen by a Boston Police Drug Enforcement Unit engaging in what the officer concluded was suspicious behavior and consistent with a drug transaction. When police confronted client, he admitted to purchasing a narcotic and possessing some narcotics on his person for which he had a prescription. After the hearing the magistrate concluded that case will not be arraigned.
RESULT: Application for Complaint DISMISSED |
|
October 7th 2009
Peabody District Court
Assault and Battery on a Public Employee Chapter 265 Section 13D
Client was an inmate at a local house of correction when he started arguing with staff. After several request to comply with the corrections officers' request, the initial officer began a takedown of client. Once taken down to the ground several officers began giving knee strikes to client. During what can best be described as a struggle, a K-9 dog bit client in the calf causing a significant wound. After the entire event was complete, one of the officers stated she was assaulted with multiple punches to the leg and client was charged. After the facts were presented to a jury, they determined that client was in fact, not guilty of any crime.
RESULT: Charge Results in NOT GUILTY after Jury Trial. |
|
September 16th 2009
Lawrence District Court
2nd OFFENSE OUI- Liquor or .08% Chapter 90 Section 24(1) (a) (1)
Client was stopped by State Police after swerving in and out of traffic. After he was stopped, the officer stated he noticed the strong odor of alcohol coming from client's breath and that he was staggering. When asked to perform a sobriety test client stated, "He couldn't do if he was sober". The District Attorney sought a deal with included client admitting guilt, attending a two week program inpatient program and serving a suspended prison sentence of 3 months in the house of correction. Attorney Barabino declined the deal and went before a judge and asked that none of the request the district attorney be accepted and client be given a first offense disposition. The judge agreed with Attorney Barabino. Client's record will be dismissed if he complies with probation requirements.
RESULT: Client Given First Offense Disposition |
|
August 31st 2009
Lawrence District Court
Abuse Prevention Order Chapter 209A
Client was a young woman who was accused of harassing her ex-boyfriend and threatening him. As a result, he obtained a restraining order without her knowledge which is allowed under the law. The law also allows for a 10 day hearing which to dispute the merits of the case. Attorney Barabino opposed the order and presented evidence with client and supporting witnesses. After the hearing the judge denied the boyfriends request for a restraining order and order was vacated in clients favor.
RESULT: 10-Day Issue of Restraining Order DISMISSED in favor of client |
|
July 8th 2009
Lynn District Court
Negligent Operation of Motor Vehicle Chapter 90 Section 24(2)(a)
Racing Motor Vehicle by Licensed Operator Chapter 90 Section 17(b),
Marked Lanes Violation Chapter 89 Section 4(a)
Speeding in Violation of Special Regulation Chapter 90 Section 18
According to the State Police Report, client was observed driving his Dodge Challenger sideways in heavy traffic reaching speeds of 85 miles per hour. The officer further stated that client and another vehicle pulled up side by side, slowing down and repeated earlier behavior. After observing continued fishtailing, sideways swerving and apparent lost of control the officer charged client with the above charges. Attorney Barabino began negotiating with the District Attorney early in the case since the act was supposedly witnessed by the officer. After a close examination of the language of the statute regarding Drag Racing, an agreement was made which allowed for the charge of Racing a Motor Vehicle to be simply dismissed, no payment required for civil offenses and administrative probation for the Negligent Operation of a Motor Vehicle with assurance of dismissal if no further violations. In addition, no license suspension results from his actions.
RESULT: Racing Motor Vehicle Charge DISMISSED |
|
June 17th 2009
Peabody District Court
Receiving Stolen Motor Vehicle Chapter 266 Section 28
Client was charged with receiving a stolen motor vehicle after police made a random stop of the Defendant while he was traveling with friends. The police knew client as he had been convicted of robbery years ago and other miscellaneous minor offenses. Once the vehicle was stopped it was determined that it had been stolen and all the parties were arrested. At trial, the Commonwealth was unable to locate a necessary witness and the case was dismissed.
RESULT: Charge DISMISSED |
|
June 2nd 2009
Peabody District Court
Assault and Battery Chapter 265 Section 15a
Intimidation of a Witness Chapter 268 Section 13b
Client had been charged with Assault and Battery (misdemeanor) and a felony charge of Intimidation of a Witness. According to police and the testimony of client's girlfriend, client waited outside until his girlfriend came to the door. When opened he pushed her and threw her into a table and a fight ensued.
The complainant had injuries and was taken away in an ambulance and seen at the emergency room. During the fight the District Attorney placed several witnesses in the stand that supported her allegation that client attempted to impede her attempt to call police. After trial, the jury found the defendant guilty of
Assault and Battery and Not Guilty of the felony charge.
RESULT: FELONY Charge results in NOT GUILTY |
|
May 13th 2009
Salem District Court
Probation Violation/Surrender Chapter 279 Section 3
Violation of Abuse Prevention Order Chapter 209 Section 7
Client was alleged to have violated a restraining order with his soon to be ex-wife. The defendant was charged with two separate counts of violation of a restraining order. In addition to being charged with the two separate criminal counts he was also violating his probation requirement for a separate domestic abuse charge. At the trial, Attorney Barabino had his wife disqualified as a witness and as a result both cases were dismissed. After the two cases were dismissed the defendant's probation officer sought to have him found guilty and committed to the house of correction. Attorney Barabino sought a hearing on probation and after the hearing the Defendant was re-instated on his same terms, no additional consequences and no jail time.
RESULT: Both Cases DISMISSED and Probation Re-instated with no additional condition(s) |
|
April 1st 2009
Peabody District Court
Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon on a Person over Sixty (60)
Client was alleged to be harassing her grandmother for money. The grandmother pushed client out of her bedroom, but client attempted to force her way in to the bedroom until the door smacked the accuser in the breast causing her discomfort, in part because she had just had surgery. The accuser had been on the phone with another family member and that family member called 911 to report the incident. The parties explained to police what occurred and defendant admitted pushing the door into the accuser. At trial, the defendant's grandmother and mother testified against her, but the determination by a judge applying the facts to the charge that a verdict of Not Guilty should be entered.
RESULT: Charge results in NOT-GUILTY |
|
February 3rd 2009
Salem District Court
Leave the Scene of Property Damage Chapter 90 Section 24 (2) (a)
Negligent Operation of Motor Vehicle Chapter 90 Section 24 (2) (a)
Client was informed by summons that his car was witnessed to be Leaving the Scene of Property damage to a motor vehicle and not stopping to provide his personal information. As a result, he was charged with the above referenced crimes. The only identification made of the driver was a bar owner who merely confirmed the owner of the car-but not the defendant himself. At trial the Commonwealth did not have the necessary witness and the case was dismissed upon request by Attorney Barabino.
RESULT: Case DISMISSED |
|
January 9th 2009
Peabody District Court
Assault and Battery Chapter 265 Section 13(a)
Malicious Destruction of Property Chapter 266 Section 127
Intimidation of a Witness Chapter 268 Section 13b
Client was charged with three charges listed above. At trial the alleged victim testified that her ex-boyfriend was jealous and jumped into her motor vehicle on her way home from her employment. She continued to testify that he punched her in the face while restraining her wrist. After several blows to the face she was unable to locate her cell phone and said he grabbed her rear view mirror off the windshield and continued beating her in the head. She immediately reported the crime and was interviewed by a specialist in domestic violence at the Salem Police Department. As part of his investigation he corroborated the broken rear view mirror and took her shirt that had the buttons torn off into evidence. Also, admitted as evidence was a signed letter to the alleged victim admitted to hitting her. After trial the jury returned an acquittal.
RESULT: Every Charge Results in NOT GUILTY after Jury Trial. |
|
January 6th 2009
Peabody District Court
Assault and Battery Chapter 265 Section 13(a)
Assault and Battery OVER 60/Disabled with Injury Chapter 265 Section 13K
Client was charged with two counts of Assault and Battery on two different people. The Police alleged that client became irate at his girlfriend when he took their son to her grandfathers home. After client made several phones calls to girlfriend he came to their home at 4:00 a.m. and started arguing with girlfriend when the elderly grandfather came downstairs. The grandfather testified that he was pushed into the wall hard enough to leave a bump in his head and lose his breath. The girlfriend jumped in front of him and he pushed her to the ground while exiting the home. After a jury trial the verdict was unanimous for the defense.
RESULT: Every Charge results in NOT GUILTY after Jury Trial. |
|
December 17th 2008
Peabody District Court
License Suspended, Operation Motor Vehicle, Subsequent Offense Chapter 90 Section 23E
Client had retained a different attorney in a prior case for driving without a license and received sixty-days (60 Days in Jail). In the present, case the defendant was charged with operating with a suspended license again and the facts against him were strong. The facts included an admission of wrongdoing and a state trooper that was prepared to testify they she stopped him for the crime and witnessed him operating the motor vehicle on a public way.
RESULT: Reduced to FIRST Offense, No Jail Time, No CONVICTION |
|
December 8th 2008
Salem District Court
Probation Violation/Surrender Chapter 279 Section 3
Assault and Battery Chapter 265 Section 13(a)
Client was charged was violating Probation as a result of his refusal to keep appointments with his probation officer as he agreed to do. Also, he violated probation because of a new charge of Assault and Battery on his wife. Since he was originally placed on probation for Assault with a Dangerous Weapon and simple Assault and Battery the Judge held him in custody pending the final probation surrender hearing. At the final hearing, Attorney Barabino filed a disposition memorandum and asked the court to simply terminate and discharge the probation to which the court agreed. The client's probation case was dismissed and this prior disposition of a continued without a finding was also dismissed. As a result, no conviction entered and he could apply for his citizenship in the United States as originally intended. Also, his new case of Assault and Battery was dismissed as the Commonwealth has insufficient evidence (witnesses) to proceed at trial.
RESULT: Case DISMISSED and Probation Matter DISMISSED |
|
December 4th 2008
Lynn Juvenile Court
Unarmed Robbery Chapter 265 Section 19
Assault and Battery Chapter 265 Section 15a
Client was accused of unzipping a young woman's pocketbook and taking out several small bills-which according to Saugus police she took and ran away with. Additionally, the police alleged that she assaulted and battered the alleged victim when the money fell to the floor. The charges were simply misunderstood-and it required a trial to prove it. However, at the day of trial the Commonwealth did not have the required witnesses to proceed and the case was dismissed.
RESULT: Case DISMISSED |
|
November 12th 2008
Peabody District Court
Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon Chapter 265 Section 15A
Client was accused of throwing an IPOD device at his wife causing bruising to her arm and a welt on her face. After wife was transported to the hospital via ambulance the police became involved and arrested husband for two counts of Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon. Attorney Barabino sought an evidence motion called a marriage waiver which would exclude any testimony of the alleged victim. As a result the judge dismissed the case since no case could be proven without her testimony.
RESULT: Case DISMISSED |
|
November 10th 2008
Peabody District Court
Assault and Battery Chapter 265 Section 15a
Client was accused of pushing an ex-girlfriend out of his vehicle while the vehicle was in motion. The client denied the accusation and had been with a friend at another location at time of the accusation-as a result that friend became his alibi witness. Attorney Barabino appeared for trial ready with his client, the alibi witness and two Marblehead Police Officers who became involved in the investigation. At trial, the Commonwealth had one witness to the alleged incident but not the complainant. Consequently Attorney Barabino sought and received a dismissal.
RESULT: Case DISMISSED |
|
October 27th 2008
Ipswich District Court
OUI- Liquor or .08% Chapter 90 Section 24(1) (a) (1)
Breakdown Lane Violation Chapter 89 Section 4B
Marked Lanes Violation Chapter 89 Section 4(a)
Client, was reportedly driving erratically and when police arrived and observed the same. Upon an investigatory stop the police observed a nearly empty Vodka bottle and an apologetic client. According to the Police officer, client was unable to comprehend the instructions he had been given. During the stop the officer made observations that included red glassy eyes, slurred speech and the pungent smell of alcohol. Additionally the officer indicated that the client made several admissions to driving under the influence. With the following facts before the court Attorney Barabino and client sought to make an admission so that he could be allowed to regain his right to drive and put this matter in the past. Attorney Barabino was able to negotiate a Not Responsible on one of the two civil infractions and the optimal disposition allowed by law on the OUI-short of a not guilty.
RESULT: One of two counts NOT Responsible FINDING & OUI Liquor Probation for twelve months with minimum fines and fees allowed by law and upon completion of probation case will be DISMISSED if completes Probation. |
|
October 14th 2008
Peabody District Court
Assault and Battery Chapter 265 Section 15a
Intimidation of a Witness Chapter 268 Section 13b
Boyfriend and girlfriend had been drinking longer than they should have. After the night progressed, client was accused of calling accuser slanderous names and eventually attempting to choke her. Accuser called 911 and wrote witnessed statements and reported the incident to police as well as providing documentation of her swollen facial area. At trial, the accuser was unavailable and as a result the case was dismissed upon request of Attorney Barabino.
RESULT: Case DISMISSED |
|
October 10th 2008
Salem District Court
Assault Chapter 265 Section 13A
Husband and Wife had been having marriage difficulties. During an argument the husband said and did things to the wife that could constitute the crime of Assault. Attorney Barabino motioned the court to have the wife enter into a Marriage Waiver during a hearing which would eliminate the possibility of her testifying at trial- with her testimony was excluded and the District Attorney was left with no option but to dismiss the matter.
RESULT: Case DISMISSED |
|
October 8th 2008
Peabody District Court
Assault and Battery Chapter 265 Section 15a
Client was charged with Assault & Battery after he entered into an argument with a fellow shopkeeper in Beverly. After client went into shopkeepers building it was alleged that he pushed the accuser with such force that his shoulder was dislocated. After an investigation an independent witness surfaced that supported the accuser's story. Nonetheless, Attorney Barabino and client remained confident in their case and a jury's ability to find the truth. At trial, the Judge, Attorney Barabino and the District Attorney agreed that client with pay $599.80 and the case will simply be dismissed and closed.
RESULT: Case DISMISSED upon payment of $599.80 |
|
September 18th 2008
Salem District Court
Assault and Battery Chapter 265 Section 15a
Threats to commit a crime Chapter 275 Section 2
Disturbing Lawful Assembly Chapter 272 Section 40
Client had been in a special school for challenged kids. The teacher instructed the student to comply with certain rules and regulations and the student refused. An altercation ensued outside the classroom that resulted in the teacher alleging that he had been pushed multiple times by the student. In addition, the police report indicated that the student made threats to kill the teacher and disrupted the school breakfast for pushing a lunch tray rack over in the presence of several students. Attorney Barabino took the case to trial at which time the District Attorney did not have a key witness, resulting in the Judge allowing Attorney Barabino's Motion to Dismiss.
RESULT: Case DISMISSED |
|
September 15th 2008
Salem District Court
Assault with a Dangerous Weapon Chapter 265 Section 15B (b)
Disorderly Conduct Chapter 272 Section 53
Vandalize Property Chapter 266 Section 126
Client was charged with the above referenced charges and according to police admitted to the acts. According to the criminal complaint, client had threatened a neighbor with a steel pipe and wrote threatening notes. Additionally, the complainant alleged that defendant kicked and permanently damaged his door. Attorney Barabino brought the case to a jury trial at which point and the District Attorney was ready with photographs, witnesses yet offered to dismiss the payment of a new door for the complainant of $875.00. As a result of this general continuance or pre-trial disposition of six months the case is dismissed preserving his record.
RESULT: Case DISMISSED |
|
September 9th 2008
Salem District Court
Shoplifting Chapter 266 Section 30A
Malicious Destruction of Property Chapter 266 Section 127
Client was charged with two separate criminal complaints. One complaint stated that he was shoplifting at a local mall and another criminal complaint alleged that he maliciously broke a window of a neighbor after a dispute. Attorney Barabino sought and the expert advice of a reputable doctor to examine to the client to determine if he was competent to stand trial. Prior the results being provided, the District Attorney agreed to Pre-Trial probation which allows a full dismissal with no admission of any crime after a three month period of time with no obligation to the court other than pay one hundred dollars for the broken window.
RESULT: Case DISMISSED |
|
September 8th 2008
Salem District Court
Aggravated Assault and Battery on a Child under 14
Aggravated Assault and Battery on a Child under 14
Client was charged with two counts of Aggravated Assault and Battery on a Child under 14. After several courts dates and hearings Attorney Barabino took the case directly to trial. At two separate trial dates the Commonwealth informed the court that they were unable to proceed and both cases were dismissed. As a result client successfully leaves for the U.S. Army with no record of any crime.
RESULT: Case DISMISSED |
|
September 5th 2008
Salem District Court
Fugitive from Justice Chapter 127 Section 25
Client was charged as a Fugitive from Justice for violating his terms of probation in New Hampshire. As a result of his status Attorney Barabino refused extradition on behalf of client, thus requiring the Governor of New Hampshire to sign a "Governors Warrant". After a ninety day period the Governor of New Hampshire failed to sign the warrant as the statute required and a motion to dismiss was filed and accepted by the court. As a result, case dismissed.
RESULT: Case DISMISSED |
|
August 28th 2008
Salem District Court
Unlawful Drug Possession Chapter 94C Section 34
Client was charged with possession of Heroin after being seen what the Police described as suspicious behavior at the Liberty Tree Mall in Danvers. The authorities took this possession charge more seriously than most since client had previously served nearly a decade in Federal Prison for Importing Heroin from Thailand and also served nearly another decade for in Prison for trafficking Heroin in Massachusetts. Nonetheless, Attorney Barabino sought to challenge the constitutionally of the initial police investigation which led to his arrest in this case. After several months the sitting justice asked to discuss the matter and a resolution of the case was completed and in return Attorney Barabino would not challenge the Commonwealth's case. After discussion with client he sought to accept the disposition of one year of probation case.
RESULT: Case DISMISSED if Cient Completes One Year Probation |
|
August 15th 2008
Lynn Juvenile Court INDICTMENT
Assault with Intent to Murder Chapter 265 Section 13
Discharging of a firearm within 500 feet/Building Chapter 269 Section 12E
Possession of a firearm without a valid License Chapter 269 Section 10
According to the police report, Client was accused of possessing a sawed-off rifle and firing one .22 bullet into the shoulder of a rival gang-member-which caused a wound that penetrated his front shoulder and exited the back of his arm. Initially, the client was charged as a juvenile but soon after the district attorney indicted the young man as an adult. After indictment he was charged with 1) Armed assault with intent to Murder 2) Carrying a firearm without a license and 3) Discharging a Firearm within 500 Feet of a Building. Soon after, Attorney Barabino sought to have a competency examination to determine if he can stand trial. Attorney Barabino hired an expert as did the District Attorney. After the hearing the judge determined that Attorney Barabino claim that his client was not competent to stand trial is accurate. However, the client remained on $50,000 bail. After several hearings Attorney Barabino sought to challenge the constitutionality of the confession and a hearing was held. After the hearing the judge agreed with Attorney Barabino and the district attorney was forbidden from using the suppressed or "non-constitutional confession". With little evidence remaining for the District Attorney to prosecute a second hearing was held to forbid the Commonwealth from using the accuser's recorded testimony and the judge agreed with Attorney Barabino. After significant legal and constitutional challenge the Commonwealth was forced to dismiss their case and the client was released with no charges.
RESULT: Motion to DISMISS, ALLOWED, Case DISMISSED |
|
August 7th 2008
Salem District Court
Probation Violation/Surrender Chapter 279 Section 3
Client was charged with violating her terms of probation. She had been on Methadone for several years and has been in rehabilitation facilities throughout the years. Her violation of probation was due to her admission of drug use to include Heroin and Cocaine. The probation officer had her detained in Framingham State Prison until her final probation hearing. After several meetings with the probation department they were persuaded not to ask for additional prison time and allow the client to be released from custody, admit to the violation and place the case out for several weeks to see her behavior in the community. After several weeks she did well and after a second hearing the case was simply terminated and discharged and a dismissal was entered for the case.
RESULT: Case DISMISSED |
|
August 7th 2008
Salem District Court
Possession of a firearm without a valid License Chapter 269 Section 10
Unlawful Drug Possession Chapter 94C Section 34
Possession of Ammunition Chapter 269 Section 10(h) Section (1)
Client, a young professional boxer was leaving a hotel in Middleton Massachusetts when a state police trooper noticed what he thought was suspicious behavior and a moving violation. Upon stopping client, trooper inventoried the vehicle and found 9mm bullets and what the thought was a functional handgun. After the "handgun" was tested at the Ballistics laboratory it was determined to be non-functional and as a result the charge was DISMISSED. Also, significant negotiation with the district attorney it was determined that the ammunition found could not be prosecuted and that charge was DISMISSED. Afterward, Attorney Barabino placed the remaining drug charge for trial. After two trial dates, the District Attorney declared that they would be willing to place the client on pre-trial probation with no admission any crime and assurance of dismissal. As a result the client had every charge dismissed.
RESULT: ALL cases DISMISSED |
|
July 28th 2008
Salem District Court
OUI - Liquor or .08% Chapter 90 Section 24(1) (a) (1)
Client was charged with leaving the scene of an accident and operating under the influence of alcohol. According to the police client was so severely intoxicated that he could barely stand upright and presented slurred speech as well as other factors that did not help the client's case. However, a significant investigation into the facts and issues combined with an extensive negotiation with the district attorney resulted in them simply dismissed the leaving the scene charge outright and allowing the lowest fines and fee for the OUI charge with a stipulation that the charge is dismissed upon completion of probation for one year.
RESULT: Leaving the Scene DISMISSED and OUI charge probation with DISMISSAL upon completion of Probation. |
|
July 17th 2008
Salem District Court
Receiving Stolen Property over 250.00 Chapter 266 Section 60
Client was targeted by police for selling an item on E-BAY that appeared to be stolen. Once identified the Police embarked on a sting operation in an attempt to catch client selling the stolen IPOD. The Police used various tools in an attempt to find incriminating evidence. Including but not limited to acting in an uncover capacity as a "Buyer of Stolen Goods"; attempting to record what they thought was a confession, the internet and various other tools of investigation. After a series of court hearings Attorney Barabino requested a received a trial. At trial the Commonwealth simply dismissed the case and declined prosecution.
RESULT: Case DISMISSED |
|
July 7th 2008
Salem District Court
Deriving Support from Prostitution Chapter 272 Section 7
Client was charged with one count of Deriving Support from Prostitution and License Suspension, Subsequent Offense. It was clear the driving without license was simply an error by the defendant and he entered a partial plea- meaning he admitted to the charge and a plea was negotiated which involved no jail time. However, the court was prepared to sentence the Defendant to no less than 2 years in prison for the Deriving Support Charge. That was an unacceptable disposition for simply having marginal and unproven connections with a known prostitute or "escort". As a result, it was a case that must be tried before a jury. After many motions and years of court dates the client appeared at trial and Attorney Barabino answered ready for trial to the court. At trial the District Attorney was unable to proceed and the case was DISMISSED.
RESULT: Case DISMISSED |
|
June 19th 2008
Salem District Court
Probation Violation/Surrender Chapter 279 Section 3
Client was charged with violating probation a restraining order and was serving prison time for that charge. Attorney Barabino assumed representation at after prison sentence and represented client for a probation violation. Once Attorney Barabino exhausted negotiations with the probation department he took his client's case before the judge. After a hearing the judge sided with Attorney Barabino and simply terminated all probation requirements and the case was DISMISSED.
RESULT: Case DISMISSED |
|
May 27th 2008
Lawrence Juvenile Court
Indecent Assault and Battery on a child over 14 Chapter 265 Section 13H
Indecent Assault and Battery on a child over 14 Chapter 265 Section 13H
Assault and Battery Chapter 265 Section 15a
Client, a juvenile was charged with two separate counts of Indecent Assault and Battery on two separate people and one count of Assault and Battery. The case began over two years ago and after several hearings and investigations a trial date was set. The evidence was strong and the victims that were very involved in the process which led us to one option- a jury trial. However, after answering ready at trial, the district attorney made an offer which included the juvenile accepting a commitment to the department of youth services and in exchange there would be a dismissal of the two sex related charges.
RESULT: Client has both sex related charges withdrawn by prosecution (DISMISSED) and client has no obligation to register as a sex offender and the charge is wiped out-in exchange client takes a three-to five month commitment to the department of youth services and client can return to high school in the fall 2008. |
|
May 5th 2008
Salem District Court
Vandalizing Property Chapter 266 Section 126A
Client was an adult already serving five years in state prison and awaiting trial on another charge which was likely to result in up to ten additional years in prison when Attorney Barabino accepted representation on a separate issue that resulted in even more charges. According to the officials at the house of correction, the client ripped the sprinkler system out of the ceiling resulting in the activation of those sprinklers and causing a major disruption and some damage to the facility. The district attorney charged him with Destruction of Property, Disconnected a Sprinkler System and Prisoner Vandalizing Prison Property. The client initially admitted to the charges but-then the judge sentenced him to an additional thirty days from and after the completion of his current sentence at which time Attorney Barabino withdrew the plea agreement and went to trial. At trial additional negotiations took place and client accepted a disposition that resulted in no additional jail time.
RESULT: Charge of Prisoner Vandalizing Prison Property DISMISSED, and remaining two charges result in an admission with prison time served and no additional time to serve after initial sentence. |
|
April 14th 2008
Salem District Court
Uttering a False Check Chapter 267 Section 5
Uttering a False Check Chapter 267 Section 5
Conspiracy Chapter 274 Section 7
Conspiracy Chapter 274 Section 7
Client, a young man was charged with six (6) specific criminal charges to includes Uttering a False Check (2 Counts), Counterfeit Travelers Check (2 counts) & Conspiracy (2 counts) after it was alleged that he engaged in activities with several other people to include the purchase of counterfeit travelers checks. After several months of pre-trial hearings and motions Attorney Barabino requested a jury trial. At clients jury trial the Commonwealth made a decision not to pursue the accused and allowed him to have general continuance which prevents any record or penalties for these serious crimes.
RESULT: All charges DISMISSED after six months with No probation requirements or obligations and never admit to any crime. |
|
March 25th 2008
Lawrence Juvenile Court INDICTMENT
Armed Robbery Chapter 265 Section 17
Armed Robbery Chapter 265 Section 17
Client, a fifteen year old was out on a "Liberty Pass" from his commitment to the Department of Youth Services when he was indicted as a youthful offender of (2) counts of Armed Robbery with a knife. The case involved several youths and over the course of nearly (2) years Attorney Barabino and his client worked together to rebut the accusation made against him and prepare for trial. Trial preparation included gathering defenses witnesses and their preparation, complying a review of trial transcripts, defenses investigation of several people and related trial rehearsal for a potential penalty that could include decades of imprisonment if convicted. After several trial dates the court was ready, the Defense was ready and the District Attorney was ready to proceed. However, before the jury was sworn in Attorney Barabino requested the judge have a third attorney interview an accuser in the case to see if his testimony would incriminate him under the 5th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. After consult with a third party attorney, the client sought not to testify, leaving one additional accuser who did not appear for unknown reason.
RESULT: Case DISMISSED |
|
March 20th 2008
Lynn Juvenile Court INDICTMENT
Possession with Intent to Distribute Cocaine Chapter 94c Section 32A
Client, a fifteen year old was out on "Liberty Pass" from his commitment at the Department of Youth Services when he was charged with Assault with a Dangerous weapon. The Police report alleged that client fired a weapon at accuser and his girlfriend. However, the defense investigation discovered facts to the contrary. After an examination of the forensic evidence, review of 911 transcripts, fingerprints evidence and search warrant, we knew that not only was the client innocent but we could prove it at trial. The young man was potentially facing several years of incarceration since he was indicted as a Youthful Offender. We answered ready for trial but with limited evidence at their disposal the Commonwealth was not positioned to proceed.
RESULT: Case DISMISSED |
|
March 17th 2008
Salem District Court
Threats to commit a crime Chapter 275 Section 2
Client, a man who according to police had a heated argument with his father-in- law and mother. In the dispute, it is alleged that he made threats to hurt himself and his parents. Attorney Barabino and client made the preparations for trial and thus proceeded to trial. At trial the alleged victims were not locatable and the case could not proceed with the police alone.
RESULT: Case DISMISSED |
|
March 17th 2008
Salem District Court
Probation Violation/Surrender Chapter 279 Section 3
Client, a man in his late thirties was accused of stalking a girlfriend of nearly seven years. Additionally, he was probation with a three (3) year suspended sentence for violation of a restraining order against his accuser on the stalking. The district attorney sought to incarcerate him upon immediately holding him in custody under the dangerous statute (58A). Attorney Barabino sought to have a full hearing and the judge agreed that the 58A should be DISMISSED. However, probable cause was found for a probation violation and he was held in custody. At the next court date client walked out of court.
RESULT: Client re-probated with no additional prison time and two of three of probation violations DISMISSED. The stalking charge was plead with a (CWOF Disposition) and will be DISMISSED when client finishes probation. Upon completion of probation new charges DISMISSED and probation completed with no additional prison time after hearing. |
|
March 6th 2008
Lynn Juvenile Court
Malicious Destruction of Property Chapter 266 Section 127
Client was charged with driving a vehicle that shot paint ball pellets at another vehicle. Three people were charged with the same offense. The other two defendants admitted to the crime and were given probation. Attorney Barabino and his client went to trial and the case was DISMISSED.
RESULT: Case DISMISSED |
|
February 22nd 2008
Lynn Juvenile Court INDICTMENT
Possession with Intent to Distribute Cocaine Chapter 94c Section 32A
Client, a fifteen year old was out on "Liberty Pass" from his commitment at the Department of Youth Services (DYS) and according to the police report had sold drugs to several individuals. Unknown to him the several individuals were part of an organized drug task force to include the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), State and local police as were as Sheriff Deputies. With overwhelming evidence against client, Attorney Barabino began negotiations. The young man was facing several years since he had indicted as a Youthful Offender. The Commonwealth sought several years in prison but Attorney Barabino successfully persuaded the judge to accept a commitment to the Department of Youth Service (again) until 21 and suspended sentence at the house of correction, if he doesn't complete the DYS sentence properly.
RESULT: Client avoids state prison term and is allowed to attend the Department of Services until 21 with suspended sentence for one year. (NOTE: The DYS will likely release client to his home within 5-8 months) |
|
February 14th 2008
Salem District Court
Aggravated Assault and Battery on a Pregnant Woman Chapter 265 Section 13a
Client was charged with Aggravated Assault and Battery on a pregnant woman. The accuser had made several allegations that client beat her and his child. Refusing to accept any disposition expect dismissal client and attorney Barabino prepared for trial and answered ready for trial-the Commonwealth then realized they didn't have enough evidence to prosecute and the case was DISMISSED.
RESULT: Case DISMISSED |
|
January 30th 2008
Salem District Court
Unlawful Drug Possession Chapter 94C Section 34
Client, sitting in his vehicle at Walgreen's when police were called from an "anonymous tipster" that he was selling prescription drugs. When police pulled him over they did in fact find that he had narcotics. Attorney Barabino challenged the constitutionality of the stop by police since the "tipster" wasn't properly identified and after the hearing the judge filed his decision supporting Attorney Barabino's theory and the drugs were suppressed and the case was DISMISSED.
RESULT: Motion to SUPPRESS, ALLOWED, Case DISMISSED |
|
January 29th 2008
Salem District Court
Probation Violation/Surrender Chapter 279 Section 3
Client, a young woman on probation with a history of drug problems was required by probation not to be re-arrested. While hanging out at a hotel, she was with people who were accused of stealing a motor vehicle and during the investigation she was found to possess drugs, in violation of her probation contract. The probation department brought her before the judge and requested that she be held in the Framingham State Prison until a further court date for final surrender (or sentencing). After negotiation was unsuccessful attorney Barabino persuaded the judge to allow her to walk out of court on her own and was she was not detained. A few weeks later she came to court to determine the sentence. Attorney Barabino entered into negotiations with the probation officials and she was allowed to be re-probated with the same terms of her original probation contract.
RESULT: Probation with No Detention and No additional conditions. |
|
January 14th 2008
Lowell Juvenile Court
Tagging Chapter 266 Section 126B
Client, a juvenile was observed by police detectives spraying (or) painting a wall of a local establishment. Since the detective personally saw the young man spraying the paint and damaging the wall it was clear that a deal had to strike between Mr. Barabino and the Prosecutor. The prosecutor took in account several factors that Attorney Barabino informed them of and they were able to negotiate a deal that allowed the young man to walk of out court with a straight probation. This deal allowed him the leave court without having to return as well as a dismissal on his juvenile record would enter in six months time.
RESULT: Shorter probation with DISMISSAL at end of probation |
|
January 3rd 2008
Salem District Court
Assault with a Dangerous Weapon Chapter 265 Section 15B
Client, a young business manager was operating her business shop and had felt accosted by a customer. She was charged with assault with a dangerous weapon after she allegedly raised a large brownie cutter to the customer in a threatening manner. Client had come to attorney Barabino with no previous criminal record and denied the charges from the beginning. Attorney Barabino began a lengthy investigation of every defense and mounted a significant amount of evidence in defense of client in preparation for a trial. After answering ready for trial, the Commonwealth answered they was not ready to proceed and the case as DISMISSED.
RESULT: CASE DISMISSED |
|
Law Office of