Recent Cases

July 27, 2026
OUI or .08%
The client, a hardworking pharmaceutical employee, was charged with operating under the influence of alcohol. The incident began when the client called police during an argument with his girlfriend because she appeared to be experiencing an anxiety attack. There was no physical contact, and the client contacted police out of concern for her well-being. When officers arrived at the home, the client was in his car and freely admitted that he had consumed three drinks earlier in Boston and had been asked to leave the restaurant he had visited. The officer reported smelling alcohol on the client’s breath and asked him to perform field sobriety tests, which the client declined, as was his right. Although the officer noted a slight wobble and described the client’s eyes as red and glassy, the evidence lacked clear and distinct indicators of intoxication. The client agreed with Attorney Barabino’s strategy to forgo discovery, including bodycam footage and other materials, and proceed directly to trial without delay so that, if acquitted, he could promptly petition for reinstatement of his license. Today, as scheduled, the client was acquitted, and the judge allowed the motion to reinstate his driver’s license.
RESULT: Not Guilty OUI with Motion Allowed for Reinstatement of Driver’s License.

July 23, 2026
Assault and Battery on a Family/Household Member
Felony Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon
The client was an outstanding young man and talented electrician. While he was home with his girlfriend, after both had been drinking, police were called to the location. Once they arrived, the client made statements acknowledging a physical dispute with his girlfriend but also explaining that his actions were justified. Police then spoke with the girlfriend, who alleged that the client flipped over a coffee table, dragged her to the door, and proceeded to kick her, causing her to fall in the hallway. The girlfriend also wrote a statement restating what she had told police and mentioning that strangulation had occurred as well. The charges were serious because they involved domestic abuse, and the dangerous weapon allegation was a felony charge. However, from the beginning, the necessary evidence for the government to successfully prosecute the case began to disappear. First, Attorney Barabino sat down with the accuser, who agreed that what she said to police was not accurate and was the result of her intoxication. Moreover, she came to court, sat down with the prosecutor, and stated that she recanted what she had said because it was all the result of her intoxication. The district attorney provided notice that her claims had been brought into question. This effectively eliminated her as a future witness for the Commonwealth. But the government can still prosecute these cases based on other evidence. One way would be through injuries or marks from an incident that might be apparent through police testimony, photographs, or medical evidence. They had none of that. Police can also move forward based on excited utterances or 911 calls, but they had none. In short, the only evidence they had was an admission to physical contact from the defendant, which, as he described it, was justified. As a result, a dismissal at trial was virtually assured. The government agreed and dismissed the case in 90 days. There was no admission of wrongdoing, no return to court, and the presumption of innocence remained. This was essentially a slow-motion dismissal, which would occur prior to any trial date and achieve exactly what we would have hoped to achieve at trial. Case closed.
RESULT: Court Dismisses Charges by Generally Continuing the Matter for 90 Days.

July 22, 2026
Assault and Battery on a Police Officer
Assault and Battery on a Police Officer
Assault and Battery on a Police Officer
Disturbing the Peace
Destruction of Property under -1200
Client was a married young man who was in the throes of a manic episode when police were called. They arrived at clients home and a dispute between police and client began. Client had a section 35 warrant and did not comply. The police recognizing that this is a mental health issue used, calm, restraint and patience. Despite the professional response, the client committed acts of aggression and violence which warranted police charging client. They charged him with the above offenses but an application for a magistrate hearing was given, not an arrest warrant or summons for arraignment. Since it was a clerk magistrate hearing there was an is always an opportunity for success. The goal and strategy was for client to optimize and take advantage of every rehabilitative effort available. Client had a wife that was an outstanding advocate and managed and supported husband during recovery. Client went in 52 days impatient and then remained involved with the Department of Mental Health outpatient. The magistrate heard and listened to all the support and efforts made by Client and declined to issue the Complaint.
RESULT: Magistrate permits Case to NOT GO Forward.

July 16, 2026
Harassment Prevention Order
Our client received notice of a harassment prevention order. The process began when the petitioner submitted an affidavit, after which a judge issued a preliminary ex parte order, meaning our client was not present. Police then served our client with the order and notice of a hearing, typically scheduled within ten days. After being retained, Attorney Barabino appeared in court within days, moved to unseal the affidavit, and began preparing the defense. Preparation included a detailed review of the affidavit and a memorandum opposing issuance of the order. Although the petitioner’s mother was well spoken and organized, the concerns raised involved events from nearly two years earlier. By the end of the hearing, it was clear that our client would not attempt to contact the petitioner again. The judge denied the petition, and the matter is now closed.
RESULT: HPO Order Closed and Dismissed.

June 26, 2026
Annoying Telephone Calls/Electric Communications
Criminal Harassment
In this matter, our client faced charges of criminal harassment and annoying telephone calls arising from communications made during the dissolution of a personal relationship. A restraining order was also issued in connection with the case. Attorney Barabino then came on board and represented the client and negotiated a favorable plea resolution. Although the prosecution initially sought a two-year term of probation that included a 42-week intimate partner program and a mental health evaluation, we opposed the program and advocated for more measured conditions. After a hearing, the court approved a one-year period of probation under a continuation without a finding. The client is not required to complete the intimate partner program. The sole condition is the completion of a mental health evaluation, which we expect will be satisfied promptly. No travel restrictions were imposed. Upon successful completion of the probationary period, the case will be dismissed.
Result: Eventual Dismissal and Minimal Conditions w/Probation.

June 10, 2026
Possession with Intent Class A, Subsequent
Possession with intent Class B, Subsequent
Unlawful Possession of Firearm without ID Card, Felon 10 Years, ACC
Unlawful Ammunition, None, with ACC
Unlawful Possession of Large Feeding Device
Possession of a Firearm, During Commission of Felony
The client was, a solid guy with a great, loving, and supportive family. His family was productive and law-abiding. Over time, however, he had strayed from that path and gotten into trouble. In this case, he found himself in more serious trouble than usual. Despite, facing significant legal consequences, his core character remained unchanged. He continued to be a decent, respectful, and trusting person. Police alleged that he was selling fentanyl and other drugs out of his home. He also had a prior conviction for distribution of drugs. An informant purchased drugs from the client on several occasions. The police monitored both the informant and the transactions. They then applied for a search warrant, supported by an affidavit. A magistrate reviewed and approved the application. When officers executed the warrant, they entered the home, located the client, and recovered drugs along with significant evidence of drug trafficking. They also found a loaded high-capacity firearm. Because the client was a convicted felon, this created serious additional problems. The police charged him with: Possession with Intent to Distribute a Class A substance (subsequent offense), Possession with Intent to Distribute a Class B substance (subsequent offense), Unlawful possession of a firearm (prior criminal record), Unlawful possession of ammunition (prior criminal record), Unlawful possession of a large capacity feeding device, Possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. There was also the potential for a significant sentencing enhancement (often referred to in connection with armed career criminal which he was also indicted) that carried a mandatory minimum of more than ten years on top of the underlying charges. The strategy focused on two tracks from the beginning. First, we examined his prior convictions to determine whether we could file a motion for a new trial. Second, we immediately petitioned for his release while he was being held under a G.L. c. 276, § 58A dangerousness hearing. Attorney Barabino and the team worked closely with the client’s family, who were outstanding and extremely supportive. We collected, developed, and obtained a series of affidavits that detailed the client’s good character, personal background, employment history, and residential support. We combined these materials with other supporting documents and were ultimately able to reach an agreement that resulted in the client’s release on cash bail. Once released, the case proceeded. The defense faced several challenges, including a motion to suppress the search warrant which the court deemed constitutionally acceptable. The next major phase involved a motion for a new trial on a prior case. This required sending investigators across the state to locate and interview witnesses. We prepared a detailed memorandum in support of the motion and requested a hearing. The judge allowed the petition for a new trial and scheduled a hearing date. However, through last-minute negotiations with the District Attorney’s office, we withdrew that motion for a new trial without proceeding to the hearing. Subsequently, the Commonwealth agreed to forgo the subsequent-offense enhancement. As a result, we secured a significantly reduced sentence: a state prison term of 4 to 5 years, with a three-year mandatory minimum.
Result: Released on 58A Dangerousness Hearing, Felon in Possession of Firearm and Armed Career Criminal Dismissed, and Plea Bring Matter to Conclusion.

June 12, 2026
Assault and Battery Domestic
The client was a wonderful, pleasant, college-educated young woman from a great family. She was charged with assault and battery on her husband after police responded to a domestic disturbance. Officers took statements from both parties and determined that the client was the primary aggressor, leading to her arrest under the department’s mandatory arrest policy for domestic violence allegations. While this policy does not always feel fair, it is standard in most cities and towns: when there is an allegation of domestic assault and battery, one party is typically arrested. This case, like any domestic matter, was upsetting and anxiety-provoking for the entire family. They contacted Attorney Barabino, who met with them right away and walked them through the entire process. He met with the prosecutor, gathered all the evidence as it came in, and provided a clear analysis of the case. After reviewing the matter with the District Attorney’s office, the case was placed on a hearing. Because the accuser (the husband) was unwilling to testify—by invoking spousal privilege—and given the state of the evidence, the case was dismissed at that hearing.
Result: Marital Privilege Results in a Dismissal of Assault and Battery Charge.

June 9, 2026
Assault and Battery
The client was a hard-working mother and employee with no prior criminal record. She was charged with assault and battery after the opposing party filed a civilian application for a criminal complaint rather than the matter originating with the police. The client was represented by another lawyer at the magistrate hearing, where the defense was unsuccessful. As a result, the complaint issued and the matter was scheduled for arraignment. She then promptly retained Attorney Barabino to determine the best next steps after the magistrate hearing. Attorney Barabino sought judicial diversion under Chapter 276A and requested that the client be screened by an independent therapist, as permitted by statute, to determine whether treatment and related programming would be beneficial and support dismissal. To strengthen the request, he obtained written recommendations from two separate entities confirming that the client was a good candidate for their programs. The court allowed the motion. The client then completed counseling sessions and online programming. When the matter returned to court, the case was dismissed over the government’s objection.
Result: Judicial Diversion Successfully Secured; Case Dismissed.