Recent Cases

August 12, 2026
Operating Under the Influence of Alcohol
Threat to Commit a Crime
The client was a pleasant gentleman charged with threats against police officers and Operating under the influence of alcohol. Good-natured bystanders observed him driving erratically——and called the police. When officers arrived, they found the client in his vehicle with the engine running at the driveway at his home. Clear signs of intoxication were apparent, and the observations of the civilian witnesses were credible. Police then spoke with the client’s girlfriend, who, in good faith, answered their questions. She confirmed that the couple had been drinking, that the client had insisted on driving, and that he had in fact been operating the vehicle. These facts were sufficient to support a charge of operating under the influence of alcohol. At the police station the client was video- and audio-recorded. He became belligerent, aggressive, and threatening towards officers, making a variety of threatening statements. As a result, he was also charged with threats. The clerk-magistrate set bail at $25,000 based on the facts and circumstances of the case. Defense strategy from the outset the primary goal was to sever the threats charge from the OUI charge among other. Because guilt on the threat’s allegation was clear, a full trial on that count was not advisable. Counsel therefore pursued a partial plea: resolve the threats charge in a manner that would allow a continuation without a finding (CWOF), so the charge would ultimately be dismissed. The strategy succeeded. The threats charge was continued without a finding and will be dismissed after six months. On the OUI charge, a motion to suppress the client’s statements was litigated. When all civilian and police witnesses appeared for the hearing, counsel elected to tender a plea and request a continuation without a finding to protect the client’s record. Although the case was not tried to a jury, every viable avenue was explored and pursued.
Result: Neither charge resulted in a conviction.

July 31, 2026
Operating under the Influence of Alcohol or .08
The client was polite, respectful, calm, and patient person. He was charged with Operating under the influence of alcohol. He had been driving a friend’s car at approximately 3:00 a.m. when he was pulled over by the Massachusetts State Police. According to police, the client nearly struck a barrier, blocked traffic at one point, cut the vehicle back onto the road, came within approximately half an inch of a wall, and was later observed traveling about 60 miles per hour in a 35-mile-per-hour zone. After stopping the vehicle, police administered field sobriety tests and ultimately took the client into custody. The officers reported that they noticed an odor of alcohol on his breath, slurred speech, red, bloodshot and glassy eyes, unsteadiness on his feet, and poor performance on the field sobriety tests. The case turned on several factors, but two appeared especially compelling: The officer appeared to overstate key observations. For example, the report described the client as having slurred speech, even though the available evidence did not objectively support that claim. When an officer exaggerates one observation, it can cast doubt on the reliability of the remaining observations as well. The client remained calm, composed, respectful, and compliant throughout the encounter. His demeanor was inconsistent with the more exaggerated aspects of the officer’s description. In the end, this was a close case. However, the concerns about the officer’s credibility, combined with the client’s calm and respectful demeanor, likely played an important role in the acquittal.
Result: DWI/OUI Charge is Not Guilty

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.