Recent Cases

A & B Household Member Plea

March 20th 2024
Domestic Assault and Battery (Household Member)
Client was pleasant hard-working union professional at casino with his girlfriend. This couple were enjoying themselves until they got into a petty dispute with each other. At the time they got into the petty dispute they were drinking alcohol and were intoxicated. This petty dispute resulted in client’s partner punching him in the face a couple times. Once client was punched in the face, he ran after girlfriend and aggressively tried to resolve the matter which resulted actions that were sufficient touching for the crime of assault and battery. Often, in most criminal offenses, there is not video evidence, but in this case, at this gambling location, there is military grade high resolution video that captures angles that are often not helpful to the defense, as was in this case. The prosecutor sought a guilty conviction with a period for 18-Months, Community Service, a 42-Week Intimate Partners Program and a stay away from the location. We presented an alternative a continuation of a finding instead of a guilty, no intimate partners program and no community service and also a lesser period of probation of a year. The Judge accepted the defendant’s plea with an agreement that he attend monthly counseling and agree not to drink as he recently became sober. Case will be dismissed in a year.
RESULT: Judge Accept Defendant’s Recommendation for Plea for Domestic Assault and Battery

No Charges of Leaving the Scene of PERSONAL Injury

March 14th 2024
Leaving the Scene of an Accident with Personal Injury
Client was an all-around solid husband, father and respected employer. He was charged with leaving the scene of personal injury. This charge is similar to leaving the scene of property damage, yet with the added component that a person in that accident was somehow injured to some degree. The charge of leaving the scene of personal injury also has a higher penalty which is a 6-month minimum sentence if jail is imposed. So, the penalty is very high. Also, for people, like this client who have immigration applications pending, a guilty for this charge could lead to deportation as it is a charge involving, “moral turpitude”. Here in this case, the client had been backing up his truck when he hit a pedestrian walking. When he did he quickly stopped the vehicle and shared his telephone number and did all that he thought he could do to assist. And he didn’t hear anything until the next day he got a call from police that the people alleged that he stuck the woman and then fled; that was simply not true. Client quickly called Attorney Barabino and informed him to file the summons with the clerk within 4 days as that would allow a pre-hearing, otherwise known as a magistrate hearing. In the meantime, client went to the local business and obtained video from a nearby business which showed that he stayed much longer than alleged. In preparation for the magistrate hearing, Attorney Barabino prepared a memorandum of law for the charge, also an affidavit of client which showed, among other that the location was not an actual “public way” at that time of night, and lastly, a background memorandum which was supported by the video. At the hearing, the magistrate listened intently and simply declared that there was no probable cause. Here, client was innocent and that at the hearing he was proven so.
RESULT: No Charges of Leaving the Scene of Personal Injury.

Minimum Mandatory Firearm Charge(s) reduced to Misdemeanors, No Jail.

March 4th 2024
Firearm Carrying without a License
Possession of Large Capacity Feeding Device
Ammunition without ID Card
Possession of Large Capacity Firearm
Improper Storage
Client was a Marine Corp war veteran with no prior record. Client was solid classily guy who did not own any firearms. However, a family member that he lived with did. That family member had a firearm ID card, but that card was long expired. Family member was cleaning his firearm when it accidentally discharged, sending a bullet to another adjoining apartment. When it accidentally discharged it went through the floor into another apartment, but did not injure anyone, thankfully. Eventually, family member brought the firearm into clients truck that client owned—not family member. At the moment client sat in the truck, the police came to the scene. When police interviewed them, they were nervous and said deceptive statements which elevated the intensity of the police. Police received a search warrant for a variety of items. During the search warrant execution, the police found several hundred rounds of armor piercing ammunition, high-capacity magazines and two other firearms. They also located two high-capacity magazines that were in the drawer of client’s bedroom, which would fit inside the weapon that was discharged and located in the client’s truck. Also, inside the truck where the firearm and ammunition was located happened to have an old credit card and another old card, in clients name. When Attorney Barabino came into the case, client had in jail for several months. Attorney Barabino quickly assembled the evidence and material needed to appeal the district court detention so he could have him released. That petition was successful, and client was released with conditions. The case went on for over two years, with a variety of motions, hearings, and experts. Eventually, a trial date was scheduled and the District Attorney, after nearly two years determined that, yes, she would reduce the minimum mandatory 18 months committed in the house of correction to misdemeanor(s) and probation with no conditions—other than not to have dangerous weapons. Client was accepted the deal as it gave him the predictability he wanted with no jail, and no felonies.
RESULT: Minimum Mandatory Firearm Charge(s) reduced to Misdemeanors, no Jail.

Gaming Act

February 21th 2024
Liquor ID card, Misuse
Gaming Act, Wager under 21 Years of Age
Client was a young man with no criminal record. Client was under 21 and as someone under 21 he is not permitted to gamble at any casino, not enter the casino floor, and finally not able to drink alcohol. Client decided to go to a casino with two friends, one of the friends was over 21, however client and 2nd friend were not. However, client was able to secure entrance to the casino with an identification (“ID”) that wasn’t his. This ID allowed client entrance to the casino. Once in the casino, client decided to try his hands at gambling. His brief attempt at gambling was unsuccessful and it was at that time that the Casino security intervened who were accompanied by the State Police. This casino, as most, has a highly sophisticated security system which includes video surveillance. And they were caught with little defense to their actions. The State police petitioned for a magistrate hearing. At the hearing, probable cause was established, but given a variety of factors, the state police and magistrate determined that this case should not go forward.
RESULT: Magistrate and State Police agree to NOT issue the Complaint, which means NO Record for this young man.

18 Count Indictment Ends in Plea

February 15th 2024
Assault and Battery w/Dangerous Weapon
Strangulation or Suffocation
Strangulation or Suffocation, Pregnant Victim
Assault and Battery Pregnant Victim
Assault and Battery with Dangerous Weapon, Pregnant Victim
Assault and Battery with Dangerous Weapon, Pregnant Victim
Strangulation or Suffocation
Assault and Battery w/Dangerous Weapon
Assault and Battery Pregnant Victim
Assault and Battery Pregnant Victim
Intimidation of a Witness
Strangulation or Suffocation, Pregnant Victim
Assault and Battery with Dangerous Weapon, Pregnant Victim
Assault and Battery Pregnant Victim
Assault and Battery Pregnant Victim
Strangulation or Suffocation, Pregnant Victim
Assault and Battery, Household Member
Reckless Endangerment of a Child
Client was a very decent hardworking educated married father. Client had a great reputation and was a particularly hard worker. He was in a relationship with a woman who was physically aggressive to him and he with her. Also, there was a child involved and immigrations challenges. Client would often memorialize when his spouse was aggressive and saved them on his phone. However, those contents and material was deleted presumably by someone who has access to his phone and was not recoverable. Also, the spouse had video of him striking her on various occasions and the video was not complementary. Also, the spouse was heavily involved in the prosecution of the case. The claims made was significant and at times questionable, however, she came armed with a trove of videos of physical aggression. Efforts at release from Detention and a detailed motion to dismiss, proved unsuccessful and trial preparation included 24 witnesses, 2-3 anticipated expert witnesses and a large variety of exhibits and testimony. On balance, the defendant weighed all the factors and agreed to lobby the matter with the judge to determine what he may give the defendant for a sentence if he admitted guilt. Attorney Arabino provided a detailed background sentencing memorandum and a video montage of supporting members of the public. The Government sought a prison sentence of 5-7 years. Attorney Barabino wanted much much less. In the end, the judge sentenced to 2 years house of correction, plus two more, plus probation. In the end, client agreed, and will be eligible for parole after two years. A difficult case where a young family and many lives, are forever changed.
RESULT: Client Not given 5–7-year, Prison Sentence Requested by Commonwealth, but a two year, plus two year, plus probation sentence.

HIGH SPEED CHASE, PLUS

February 15th 2024
Assault & Battery on a Police Officer
Felony Assault with a Dangerous Weapon
Refuse to Identity Self
Fail to Stop for Police
Negligent Operation of a Motor Vehicle
6 Civil Violations
Immediate Threat Designator
Client was pleasant young man who enjoyed driving his motorcycle, much, much faster than he should. Client had in the past had his license suspended by the RMV, but an all-around solid, young man with no record. While driving his motorcycle faster than he should, the police saw him and attempted to pull him over and he declined to pull over. He continued on his motor vehicle operation at excessive speeds. Police pursued him as best as they could at these excessive speeds and client continued to elude police. Client was stopped at a stop sign when a state police trooper came up behind him and got in front of his motorcycle. He tried to take the key out and the defendant resisted. Eventually, client drove the motorcycle forward physically pushed the trooper into traffic with his motorcycle. Client then sped off and client had no license plate which made identification challenging for Police. However, the police were undeterred. The state police fugitive apprehension team used a variety of sophisticated techniques to determine who he may be, which included a review of like motorcycles and people in the area who had owned one, the similarity of the chain worn by the defendant as comparable to the chain he wore in his driving license photograph. The case generated a variety of media attention as well, which can place more pressure on the decision makers, since the behavior of the defendant was not admirable or justified. Eventually, the warrant apprehension team came to the location of the defendant’s home with large swath of police officers. The defendant was arrested and released at arraignment. Eventually, the case made it thought the court system. The trooper attended the sentencing and was decent and respectful and genuinely upset over the incident. It was a close call, but the judge didn’t sentence to jail or more importantly any felony conviction.
RESULT: Client Avoids Both Felony Convictions and No Jail. All Civil Violation are NOT Responsible.

Improper Storage of a Firearm Does Not Issue.

February 6th 2024
Improper Storage of a Firearm
Client was an all-around solid, hard worker father who was charged with Improper Storage of a Firearm. Father, while home with adult son, had a brief argument regarding proper firearms handling. Son, called police asking them to intervene. Police came to the home and politely and professionally made inquiry to the situation and made observations of various storage procedures that were in place. They concluded that there was a justification for a charge of improper storage of a firearm and a clerk magistrate hearing was scheduled. In preparation for the hearing Attorney Barabino developed a probable cause memorandum as well as a background affidavit of the client. Additionally, they enrolled client in a remedial program for the safe keeping of firearms. In the end, no probable cause was found.
RESULT: Improper Storage of a Firearm Does Not Issue.

Leaving the Scene Complaint Does Not ISSUE At Magistrate Hearing.

February 5th 2024
Leaving the Scene of Property Damage
Client was hard working single professional. While enroute home from work he got into a car accident, a serious one where there was a high degree of property damage. After the accident, client left the scene and drove home in a panic. Client had no reason to leave the scene as he was insured and licensed—and had not consumed any drug or alcohol. In the end, he left, and he should not have. Shortly after the accident, client, who had driven home, now had the police at his door. He admitted his wrongdoing and the police officer provided him a summons. Client notified Attorney Barabino, who had client send in the summons to the Magistrate within the 4 Day limit. By sending the summons in by the 4-day limit, he is entitled to a clerk magistrate hearing to determine if the charges should issue. At the hearing, they presented materials in mitigation of issuing the charges, which included a summary of the restitution which was paid in full. In the end, due to a variety of factors, there was an agreement to NOT issue the complaint.
RESULT: Leaving the Scene Complaint Does Not ISSUE At Magistrate Hearing.

Assault and Battery DISMISSED in 180 Days, No admission of wrongdoing or Guilt.

January 30rd 2024
Assault and Battery
Client was a very kind decent law-abiding gentleman who, with one exception had never had problems with the law. On this occasion he was charged with assault and battery. Client had some friends over and according one friend, alleged that he struck her which resulted in a swollen lip. That person called police on a recorded line 911 line and stated her claims. Then police arrived as one would expect and assessed the situation. Apparently, there was a witness to client striking who affirmed the persons claims. Client had been defending himself but was arrested as is the normal course when police are in these situations. After several months, a review of the evidence and discussion with the District Attorney a trial viability date was held were all the people involved are summoned to court. This is something that is very preferable to the defense and it allows for cases to be often resolved favorability and predictability. In this case, the one witness appeared and discussed her recollection with the district attorney and her recollection was very favorable to the defense this time. At this point, the District Attorney agreed to stop the prosecution if client simply didn’t contact the complainant for 6 months. No plea, no admission of wrongdoing and no probation.
Result: Assault and Battery DISMISSED in 180 Days, No admission of wrongdoing or Guilt.

Violation of Restraining Order is DISMISSED, At Trial.

January 23rd 2024
Violation of a Restraining Order
Client was all around class-act was charged with violation of a restraining order. He lived in Another state far away and violation was alleged to happen in Massachusetts. That means the case has to be in a Massachusetts court. The basis of the violation was a missed call on shortly after the protective order was received by client. There was an admission to making the call, but it was stated that it was done mistakenly. When a person does something mistakenly, there is a safety valve defense of “accident”. Another issue for the defense was the court requiring a person to appear at arraignment, hearings and trial causing a significant burden for client. Fortunately, Attorney Barabino had client’s presence waived at arraignment via motion in court—saving him a costly and unnecessary trip to Massachusetts. As the case proceeded, over nearly a year’s time, the complainant was insistent on the matter being fully pursued and that made making a deal with the Commonwealth challenging. Eventually, they scheduled the matter for trial where client had to appear in person. However, our witness was given previous permission to appear with a zoom for clients out of state witness. Eventually, on the day of jury trial, the Commonwealth recognized that they had a significant burden to achieve any guilty verdict and agreed to simply dismissed the case in its entirety. Case is Dismissed.
RESULT: Violation of Restraining Order is DISMISSED, At Trial.