Search: intent

Displaying 106 Results

October 7^th 2015
Possession with Intent to Distribute Class “D”
Conspiracy
Client was a loving father, a dedicated employee, and a supportive partner. According to police, an “informant” provided information to police that he thought that drug dealing was occurring at his home. Police, being particularly detailed, commenced what are called “trash pulls”, which included a review of the contents of all their trash at multiple trash drops. A search warrant was executed. Police located a few ounces of marijuana, scales and baggies. The cases presented some complexities since there was an immigration detainer. So the goal was to move the case as fast as possible. However, despite immigration concerns, client and Attorney Barabino didn’t want to see him admit to a distribution charge, when the reality was that it was simply marijuana for personal use, albeit a larger amount than typical for the average smoker. In the end, immigration consequences left us no choice but trial and mid-day into the first day of trial, moments before the jury was to enter, an agreement to reduce the charge to simple possession ended the case.
RESULT: REDUCTION FROM DISTRIBUTION TO SIMPLE POSSESSION. Conspiracy DISMISSED.

May 4^th 2015
Drug, Possession Class D (Weed), Distribute
Conspiracy to Violate Drug Law
According to police, while on patrol in a high-crime area, they noticed what they believed to be a drug transaction. They produced a lengthy police report, which detailed their observations. The officers based their actions on a hunch and that hunch proved to be correct. An attempt to dismiss the case suppressing evidence as an illegal search was surprisingly unsuccessful. However, Attorney Barabino and client moved on. After viewing the scene with client, reviewing the evidence in the possession of the government, and preparing witnesses, a trial date was set. The government had an admission of wrongdoing from the defendant, a quarter pound of weed (individually bagged and others empty bags), a scale, and a little more than two hundred dollars as evidence. Despite appearing ready at the first trial date, the Commonwealth was not ready. As a sanction, the judge said at the next date they must appear ready. On the second date, they were unable to answer ready and the judge agreed to dismiss the case.
RESULT: Class “D” Intent to Distribute, DISMISSED, Conspiracy DISMISSED.

August 8^th 2013
Drug, Possession to Distribute Class A Chapter 94C Section 32A (a)
Drug, Possession to Distribute Class B Chapter 94C Section 32A (a)
Drug, Possession to Distribute Class C Chapter 94C Section 32A (a)
Client was under observation from police when he was stopped and arrested. According to police, they stopped Defendant and saw drugs in plain view on his car seat. The police searched the vehicle and located what they believed to be various drugs that were being prepared for distribution. The drugs that were allegedly intended to be distributed were thought by police to be Neurontin, Lexapro and Codeine. After nearly two years of litigating the case in court, a drug certification was provided to the Defendant, which stated that some of the drugs were in fact heroin. To add to the confusion, there was no chemist to testify as to the specific composition of the drugs at trial, which is almost always necessary for a conviction. At the day of trial, the Commonwealth was unable to secure the presence of the State Chemist. Attorney Barabino asked the court to dismiss the case as a result. The court, for various reasons, allowed the request for a dismissal. Case Closed.
RESULT: Possession with Intent to Distribute Class A, B & C Drugs, DISMISSED.

June 29^th 2012

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 (with whom they were familiar) pull behind another car that they were secretly watching. They observed client’s passenger get out of the car and sell heroin to a young couple. The police were there 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, knowledgeable drug enforcement officers. Their hunch of illegal activity was correct---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 two-year sentence is mandatory. 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), were represented by other lawyers and admitted to 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 was proposed, client was ready to agree to a deal. In addition, client consented to forfeiting his nearly $1,000 in cash, which was located on his person. If he remains out of trouble for a year, his charge will be dismissed entirely.
RESULT: School Zone, DISMISSED, Intent to Distribute, DISMISSED, Possession Charge, NOT GUILTY.

August 15th 2008
Assault with Intent to Murder
Discharging of a firearm within 500 feet/Building
Possession of a firearm without a valid License
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, causing 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 client could stand trial. Attorney Barabino hired an expert, as did the District Attorney. After the hearing, the judge determined that Attorney Barabino's claim that his client was not competent to stand trial was 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 challenges, the Commonwealth was forced to dismiss their case and the client was released with no charges.
RESULT: Motion to Dismiss, ALLOWED, CASE DISMISSED

March 20th 2008
Possession with Intent to Distribute Cocaine
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, fingerprint evidence, and a search warrant, Defense knew that not only was the client innocent but it could be proven at trial. The young man was potentially facing several years of incarceration since he was indicted as a Youthful Offender. Defense answered ready for trial but with limited evidence at their disposal the Commonwealth was not positioned to proceed.
RESULT: CASE DISMISSED

February 22nd 2008
Possession with Intent to Distribute Cocaine
Client, a fifteen year old, was out on "Liberty Pass" from his commitment at the Department of Youth Services (DYS). According to police, he had sold drugs to several individuals. Unknown to him, the several individuals were part of an organized drug task force which included the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), State and local police, as well as sheriff deputies. With overwhelming evidence against client, Attorney Barabino began negotiations. The young man was facing several years since he had been 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 he was 21 and a suspended sentence at the house of correction.
RESULT: NO STATE PRISON TERM. Allowed to attend the Department of Youth Services until 21 with suspended sentence for one year. Likely DYS release home within 5-8 months.