Recent Cases

2nd OFFENSE OUI, Standard 2ndOffense Statutory Disposition

January 10th2018
Cambridge District Court
SECOND OFFENSE OUI- Liquor or .08% Chapter 90 Section 24(1) (a) (1)  

Client was a hard-working, former U.S. Army Officer and war veteran was charged with operating under the influence of alcohol, 2ndoffense. According to police, he was operating his vehicle when he lightly struck another vehicle. He was mumbling and disheveled and intoxicated to the point where he was unable to speak coherently and maintain basic balance. Despite the egregious allegations, he did have some defenses. However, despite those defenses, he simply wanted to bring the case to conclusion as quickly as possible, which Attorney Barabino did. The law provides a minimum mandatory disposition for people charged with a second offense charge within ten years of the first charge. As a result of client’s background, Attorney Barabino was able to negotiate the minimum of a sixty-day house of correction sentence, suspended for a two-year period. Client will also be required to attend a mandatory two-week impatient program.

RESULT: 2nd OFFENSE OUI, Standard 2ndOffense Statutory Disposition


January 2nd2019 
Cambridge District Court & Somerville District Court
Larceny by Check Chapter 266 Section 37

Client was a very pleasant hard-working bank professional who (unknown to her) had outstanding warrants from 1989 for bounced checks. She was arrested by police and per policy they had to take her into custody. Attorney Barabino and client were able to get her released and given recognizance forms to clear up the warrants in the courts where they originated from. Attorney Barabino and client were able to go to both courts in the same day and negotiate dismissal(s) on all charges upon the money owed. CASES DISMISSED.

RESULT: Both Warrants RECALLED; Both Cases DISMISSED upon Restitution.



December 11th2018
Cambridge District Court
Motion to Seal Record Chapter 276 Section 100(c)

Client was an hard-working Biotech Professional that had previously plead out to a Drinking and Driving Case (OUI) with Attorney Barabino. The case, despite an accident, had been granted a Continuance Without a Finding (CWOF) and eventually dismissed. After client’s dismissal entered, Attorney Barabino went back to the Court with his successful probation record and affidavits of the impact of a simple dismissal has on record and its effect on his employment. After a hearing, the court took the matter under advisement and today, we received notice that the motion to seal was his dismissal is ALLOWED.



December 10th2018
Cambridge District Court
Unlicensed Operation of MV Chapter 90 Section 10

A pleasant young professional had a mix-up on a license reinstatement and mistakenly was driving without a license. The police charged him with the crime after he was hit by another motor vehicle. He hired Attorney Barabino and they prepared for the Clerk-Magistrate hearing. They obtained details of the accident and insurance confirmations, his resume and his impressive background as well as his new license, which he received after the incident. At the hearing, it was determined that NO CHARGES SHOULD ISSUE. Client retains his otherwise spotless criminal record.

RESULTNO CHARGES SHOULD ISSUE. Client retains his otherwise spotless criminal record.

Drinking and Driving NOT GUILTY

December 4th2018
Somerville District Court

Unlicensed Operation of MV Chapter 90 Section 10
FIRST OFFENSE OUI- Liquor or .08% Chapter 90 Section 24(1) (a) (1) 
Failure to Stop, Chapter 90B, Section 38 

A hard-working individual was in a minor car accident and State Police were called to the scene and charged client with operating under the influence of alcohol; driving unlicensed and a civil infraction. According to State Police, client’s breath smelt of alcohol, he was slurring his words, he was unsteady on his feet and had red glossy eyes. When the respectful officer asked about the accident, client was not entirely clear about the account and the damages to the vehicle did not fit his account. Attorney Barabino crossed examined the both the arresting officer and the booking officer. At the conclusion of the case, the jury deliberated and agreed that the client was NOT GUILTY of driving under the influence. The court also marked his civil infraction NOT RESPONSIBLE and the client had already agreed to a three-month probation period on the unlicensed operation which at which time it will be dismissed.  



November 28th2018
Boston Municipal Court
Motion to Seal Record Chapter 276 Section 100(c) 

Client was an all-around pleasant hardworking professional who had been charged with soliciting last year. The case was dismissed—but he wanted to make sure that no employer could see that he was charged in the past. Attorney Barabino prepared a motion to seal clients record. The motion included a number of items to include the clients background and reason for filing, affidavits and attachments. On the day of the hearing, client and Attorney Barabino presented the petition in court and the judge, ALLOWED the motion. 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.



November 20th2018
Salem District Court
Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon, Chapter 265, Section 15A
Assault and Battery on Child with Serious Injury Chapter 265 Section 13A 

Intimidation of a Witness Chapter 268 Section 13b
Assault and Battery Chapter 265 Section 15B(b)

Strangulation or Suffocation Chapter 265 Section 15D(b) 

Client was a pleasant young father with no prior record and steady job.  His relationship with his wife was tumultuous but he stayed committed for the four children they shared. According to police, he got upset one afternoon and beat her to include to include, strangulation. Moreover, the police alleged her interfered with her ability to call police. Attorney Barabino challenged the 58A dangerous order which would keep him incarcerated until trial. Attorney Barabino was successful in gaining his pre-trial freedom at the 58A hearing. Soon after the district attorney filed additional charges alleging, he abused one of the four children. That charge was incorporated the first charge in a motion to join the charges. As the case proceeded through the court system Attorney Barabino and client reviewed and reports, 911 calls and began preparation for what we will be jury trial. At the day of trial, the ex-wife asserted her marital privilege which would allow her to waive her testimony—leaving the Commonwealth with no case to prosecute. Despite this assertion of martial privilege, it doesn’t apply to child abuse cases, which this one had as well. However, after much deliberation, the District Attorney decided they had no admissible evidence to introduce and Attorney Barabino request for a dismissal on the charges was ALLOWED. 



November 9th 2018
Malden District Court

SECOND OFFENSE OUI- Liquor or .08% Chapter 90 Section 24(1) (a) (1)  
Speeding, Chapter 90, Section 17A

Client was a hard-working, newly married construction professional who was charged with a 2nd Offense OUI. According to Police, he was speeding and pulled over. The police drafted a report with all the normal indicators of intoxication. Also, client agreed to a breath test which was twice the legal limit. The client wanted a deal and wanted to move on with his life which included a hardship license to drive. At a plea hearing, the Commonwealth asked the judge to impose a guilty conviction with a suspended jail sentence and have him attend a government two-week IMPATIENTprogram. Attorney Barabino argued for an alternative disposition where client would be 1) placed on probation with an expectation that the case be dismissed after a year with normal conditions and cost of a 1st Offense OUI charge, a 45-day loss of license not one year, and NO Impatient program.  The judge agreed with Attorney Barabino.


1st OFFENDERS Disposition, NOT RESPONSIBLE Both Civil Infractions.

November 8th 2018
Concord District Court

FIRST OFFENSE OUR- Liquor or .08% Chapter 90 Section 24(1) (a) (1) 
Marked Lanes Violation, Chapter 89, Section 4A
Mobile Phone, Operator Use Improperly Chapter 90 Section 13

Client, a young Ph.D. Biotech manager was charged with OUI first offense. According to Police, she was seen driving erratically late at night. The police arrested her after they believed she failed the sobriety test and other indicators of intoxication.  Not interested in prolonged, possibly unpredictable and more costly litigation she chooses enter a plea before the court. Attorney Barabino, moved the case so that she could close out the case sooner that it had been originally planned. Once at court, the understanding and reasonable district attorneys reviewed her background and engaged in a discussion, agreeing to a continued without-a-finding for 12 months and 45-day loss of license. They also agreed to find her Not Responsible for the Mobile Phone use ticket. Once in front of the judge, Attorney Barabino argued for the above disposition AND for her to be found NOT RESPONSIBLE on the marked lanes violation, to which the judge agreed too.

RESULT: 1st OFFENDERS Disposition, NOT RESPONSIBLE Both Civil Infractions.

1st OFFENSE, 90/24D Disposition

October 29th 2018
Concord District Court

FIRST OFFENSE OUI- Liquor or .08% Chapter 90 Section 24(1) (a) (1) 
Open Container Chapter 90 Section 24L   
Speeding, Chapter 90, Section 17A 
Marked Lanes Violation, Chapter 89, Section 4A

Client, a young hard working-working professional was charged with Operating under the influence of Alcohol. In addition to the criminal charge she was given three separate "civil" citation(s) which included possessing an open container, speeding and marked lanes violation. According to Police in the early morning hours, client was speeding and weaving. She was found with a glass of beer, red bloodshot eyes and the smell of alcohol on her breath among other indicators of intoxication. Despite what appeared to be a strong case for the Government, she did have a strong defense. Despite the existence of this defense, client understandly, simply wanted to get the case wrapped up quickly, with the least cost and effort possible. As a result, Attorney Barabino was able to negotiate with the District Attorney a 1st offense disposition whereas, the charge will be dismissed after a one-year period. This is a fairly predictable result when the client has an otherwise clean record, no accident at the scene and no additional circumstances such as very high breath test result or disrespectful conduct to the officer. In addition to the 1st offense plea there was an agreement to dismiss all the "civil" infractions which is particularly important to avert an extended license suspension for the multiple surcharges which can result from civil infractions.

RESULT: 1st OFFENSE, 90/24D Disposition, Civil Infractions found NOT RESPONSIBLE.


Contact Us

Fill out our online form