Recent Cases

Strangulation DISMISSED at Trial

November 16th 2017
Salem District Court
Assault and Battery Chapter 265 Section 15B(b)

Strangulation or Suffocation Chapter 265 Section 15D(b) 
Client was a young man who just out of high school when he was charged with grabbing his brother and basically giving him a headlock. Years ago, this type of behavior would not elicit a police response, never mind a felony charge—followed by a request to imprison the client until the day of trial. But the times have changed and the reality is that any allegation of physical aggression is looked upon with great concern by law enforcement. So, in this case, the police did respond to the home, they did charge him with a felony and the government did seek to imprison him until the day of his trial with no bail allowed. Attorney Barabino was successful in advocating for his release until the day of trial, despite the District Attorney arguing for a 58A Dangerous Hearing Detention Hold. After his release from custodial detention, the normal preparations were made to prepare for trial. At the day of trial, Attorney Barabino and his client announced “Ready for Trial”, but with minutes to go before empanelment of the jury, the District Attorney announced that the complainant is refusing to cooperate and they cannot go forward. Attorney Barabino requested dismissal of the charges, that request was allowed. 
RESULT: 58A Dangerous Hearing, ALLOWED, Client released Pending Trial, DISMISSED at day of Trial.

Level III SORB Decision VACATED

Level III SORB Decision VACATED
November 11th 2017
Sex Offender Registry Board/Superior Court Judicial Review
Client had been on the SORB Registry when he one accused of second, separate sex crime—which he denied and was eventually acquitted. However, prior to his acquittal he had a SORB hearing labeling him as a level III offender based on the charges. Attorney Barabino appealed the decision of the SORB. Timely Notice of Appeals filed, with complaint and affidavits. Soon after transcripts of the initial hearing were obtained and memorandums of law exchanged between the parties. Eventually a hearing was held and soon after a written decision indicating that the original SORB decision was VACATED and remanded to the board for a new classification hearing. 
RESULT: LEVEL III SORB Classification VACATED, New Hearing. 

The Defendant admitted to the charge, with the agreement that if he paid back the money within two (2) years the charge will be DISMISSED.

October 16th 2017
Waltham District Court
Larceny over $250.00 Chapter 266 Section 30(1)
Client was a young man who stole over five thousand ($5,000.00) dollar’s worth of electronic goods from a chain store in the course of his employment. Larceny over $250.00 is a felony charge. The case against client was strong as the store had investigated the case for months and assembled a trove of electronic evidence. In addition, they secured an admission from client prior to him being formally charged. Negotiations continued for several months and the result was an admission to the charge. He doesn’t pay any probation fees and agrees to take a ½ program to learn about theft. Finally, he must pay back the money of the items that he stole. In the end, no conviction will appear on his record if he complies with the agreement.
RESULT: The Defendant admitted to the charge, with the agreement that if he paid back the money within two (2) years the charge will be DISMISSED.

RESULT: NOT GUILTY AFTER TRIAL

September 5th 2017
Salem District Court
Abuse Prevention Order Chapter 209A

A hard-working father had been in a relationship with a woman years ago.  During that prior relationship, she secured a restraining order to which prohibited him for being without 100 yards of her at all times. According to her, while she was working at her place of employment, he stopped and stared at her in violation of the order. We agreed that he did briefly walk by her store where she was working, but he did not know she worked there and he was simply as surprised as she was. Although a strong case for the defense, the Commonwealth surely felt otherwise. The Commonwealth felt the case could be proven and even obtained prior allegations against the defendant to show his “bad acts”. At trial, the judge ruled that the Commonwealth cannot use the prior bad acts as they sought to do-a win for the defense. A guilty verdict would surely mean deportation for the otherwise, innocent defendant. However, after witness after witness testified, it was clear that he was in fact, NOT GUILTY.  
RESULT: NOT GUILTY AFTER TRIAL

RESULT: 1st Offense OUI Dismissed After One YEAR of PROBATION and PROGRAM.

August 16th 2017
Somerville District Court
1st OFFENSE OUI- Liquor or .08% Chapter 90 Section 24(1) (a) (1) 
Young college graduate was driving and struck a parked car. Several challenges where made to the evidence of the Commonwealth via motion to suppress. Although the court denied the motion, the court authored a well written detailed 9-page decision for their rationale and basis.  The client agreed to a plea that would place him on probation for one year—with the agreement that it will be dismissed off his record at the end of that calendar year.  
RESULT: 1st Offense OUI Dismissed After One YEAR of PROBATION and PROGRAM.

RESULT: 1st Offense OUI Dismissed After One YEAR of PROBATION and PROGRAM & Civil Violation NOT RESPONSIBLE.

August 14th 2017
Brockton District Court

1st OFFENSE OUI- Liquor or .08% Chapter 90 Section 24(1) (a) (1) 
Miscellaneous Municipal Ordinance 14-1
Young professional sought guidance and direction on how to best solve their situation. She was driving without lights, failed the sobriety test and made incriminating statements. After discussing trials and pleas, she opted for a plea, in part, to accelerate her hardship license application. An agreement was hashed out and a Not Responsible on her civil infraction entered at the first court appearance with probation for the OUI charge.  Client agreed to a plea that would place her on probation for one year—with the agreement that it will be dismissed off her record after one year.   
RESULT: 1st Offense OUI Dismissed After One YEAR of PROBATION and PROGRAM & Civil Violation NOT RESPONSIBLE.

RESULT: Complaint DOES NOT ISSUE, with Agreement to Provide Insurance Documentation with sixty (60) days to authorities.

August 11th 2017
Woburn District Court
Leave Scene of Property Damage Chapter 90, Section 24 (2)(a)
Client was a young man about to embark on his first year at college. However, in the interim break, before school started, he was in a car accident. His problem was after the accident, he fled the scene, resulting in damage to two separate vehicles. The result was a criminal offense. Fortunately, parents reached out to Attorney Barabino early and he was able to coordinate a Clerk Magistrate hearing within the four-day period by law. A clerk magistrate hearing is a pre-criminal event which, if successful, can avoid there being any trace of the event on the persons criminal record. A hearing was held, with communication and documentation to the parties beforehand. The result was NO COMPLAINT ISSUES.

RESULT: Complaint DOES NOT ISSUE, with Agreement to Provide Insurance Documentation with sixty (60) days to authorities.

TABACCO SMUGGLING --DISMISSED

August 2st 2017
Woburn District Court
Conspiracy Chapter 274 Section  Tax,
Attempt to Evade Chapter 62C Section 73A
Client was in possession of a large amount of tobacco products from a southern state—and they had no license or stamp. The amount of tobacco was substantial. There were immigration consequences if the case was not successful. Several court dates led to the filing of a motion to suppress evidence. At that key hearing, the Commonwealth declared that they would not be able to secure a necessary witness and were then forced to DISMISS the entire case. 
RESULT: Motion to Suppress Evidence, FILED. Case DISMISSED Prior to Hearing.  

Magistrate Hearing- No Charges Issued

August 1st 2017
Woburn District Court
Leave Scene of Property Damage Chapter 90, Section 24 (2)(a)
Malicious Destruction of Property Chapter 266 Section 127 
Young, bright teacher was angered by her boyfriend. As a result of that anger she vandalized his car by keying it, thereby damaging it. At the conclusion of her moment of anger she bumped the car with her car when she left the area. Client and boyfriend had since resolved their differences and a trove of background information was provided indicating that the couple have fully resolved their differences. At the conclusion, an agreement was made to be evaluated for anger issues, and if none exist then she the complaint will not issue.
RESULT: Application for Complaint, Does NOT ISSUE, Contingent on Anger Evaluation within two months.

RESULT: Both Charges DISMISSED, At Trial-DOMESTIC

July 18th 2017
Salem District Court
Assault and Battery on a Chapter 265 Section 13M

Client and his girlfriend were arguing in the early morning hours in the street. Police were called and interviewed both parties. Girlfriend said she was punched in the face, but soon after denied it and was consistent in her statement. At the time of trial, they had since broken up. Despite that breakup, she again came to court and said a lie is a lie, and she will not say he did it, ever—because he didn’t. The District Attorney DISMISSED the case.
RESULT: Both Charges DISMISSED, At Trial.

sidebar_in_the_news

Contact Us

Fill out our online form