Recent Cases

August 25th 2026
209A Abuse Prevention Order
Ten-Day Hearing
The client had no criminal record and consistent, reputable employment. She had been in a long-term relationship that ended with tension. After the breakup, she called her former partner many times. He sought a 209A abuse prevention order. A judge issued a short-term order and set a ten-day hearing. Attorney Barabino represented the client at that hearing. Both parties testified. After hearing the evidence, the judge determined that the case did not need to go forward and did not allow the order to continue.
Result: Ten-Day Hearing, 209A Order NOT CONTINUED.

August 19th 2026
Negligent Operation of a Motor Vehicle
Clerk-Magistrate Hearing
The client was notified that police were investigating what could be termed a road rage incident. He contacted Attorney Barabino right away and made no statement to the police. A citation for negligent operation of a motor vehicle arrived in the mail. On Attorney Barabino’s instruction, the client went to court within four days and requested a clerk-magistrate hearing. The Commonwealth’s allegations were that the client had driven aggressively and inappropriately and had done so on a consistent basis in an encounter with another driver. In the meantime, Attorney Barabino prepared a memorandum in support of the client, with affidavits of support. The client also completed the Brains at Risk online program. Attorney Barabino, the client, and the client’s wife appeared at the clerk-magistrate hearing. After reviewing the materials, the clerk determined that, given all the circumstances, the matter did not need to go forward. No complaint issued.
Result: Clerk-Magistrate Hearing, NO COMPLAINT ISSUED. Client Not Formally Charged.

August 18, 2026
Operating under the Influence of Alcohol or .08
Client was a Nepalese immigrant who was charged with Operating under the Influence of Alcohol. Whereas he was not yet a citizen, a guilty conviction or admission to sufficient facts could result serious immigration problems. The police report detailed the basis of the arrest which was he was in a school parking lot picking up his child when he was found slumped over the front wheel of his car—with the key in the ignition. A nip of alcohol was found in his pants with several empty nips and beers cans in and around him. The police and ambulance came and he was medically alright, but intoxicated. He went to the police station and blew nearly twice the legal limit. In the end, several items were brought before the jury for review including several witnesses from the government, and bodycam footage. The District Attorney presented the case very well, but the jury determined the evidence was insufficient and declared that he is not guilty.
Result: OUI or .08 Breath Test Reading Result in Acquittal.

August 14, 2026
Assault on a Police Officer Charge
Magistrate Hearing
The client was an active-duty sailor in good standing when he received notice of a clerk magistrate hearing for assault on a police officer. The charge was serious and carried significant potential consequences, including likely discharge from the Armed Services and other collateral consequences. At the time, the sailor was facing an accumulation of stressful personal and professional issues. Those stressors contributed to poor judgment that ultimately resulted in the assault on a police officer allegation. The police department recognized the context and understood the pressures he was experiencing. A clerk magistrate hearing was scheduled. Fortunately, the clerk magistrate’s office allowed the hearing to be continued so counsel could find a time when the client could obtain leave, travel from his active-duty assignment, and appear in person. The client was eventually granted leave, flew in for the hearing, and the matter was coordinated and presented. After the hearing, the assault on a police officer charge was dismissed before arraignment.
Result: Assault on a Police Officer dismissed pre-arraignment. Crisis averted.

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.