Recent Cases

ANNOYING TELEPHONE CALLS

March 7th 2019
Boston Municipal Court

Annoying Telephone Calls/Electronic Communication Chapter 269 Section 14A
Annoying Telephone Calls/Electronic Communication Chapter 269 Section 14A

A hard working state-employee, now retiree, became has concerns about his various process and procedures with the Commonwealth. As a result, he made a lot of unwanted calls, text and social media post. Client was charged with annoying phone calls, 2 counts. The acts were prosecuted by the  Attorney General Cyber Crime Division. The Commonwealth provided ample discovery and evidence prior to trial. That evidence included over 700 hundred numbers exhibits which were supported in electronic and print format. The evidence was strong. Attorney Barabino and client tendered a plea—but when we didn’t get what we were seeking, they withdrew the plea and opted for a trial. At trial they once again, tendered a plea and received what was an acceptable disposition.

RESULT: 2ndTender of Plea, Half Probation Period and less Conditions.

LEAVING THE SCENE

March 6th2019
Malden District Court
Leave Scene of Property Damage Chapter 90, Section 24 (2)(a)

Client was a young doctor that made light contact with another car and did not stop as directed under the law. She was summons to court and Attorney Barabino was able to ensure that it was clerk-magistrate hearing and not a summons for arraignment. A summons for an arraignment would be an automatic mark on her unblemished record.  At that hearing clerk magistrate hearing, all the issues were investigated and assurance that the other party was compensated. As a result, the court agreed to DISMISS the application for complaint. 

RESULT: Application for Criminal Complaint, DISMISSED

AGREEMENT to REDUCE the FELONY to a MISDEMEANOR

February 15th2019
Salem District Court
Larceny from a Building Chapter 266 Section 20

Client was a young man who had had sporadic involvement with the law, but no prior convictions. He also was beginning to dabble in illicit drug use. According to police, while employed at a coffeeshop he aided and abetted another individual to steal several hundred dollars from his place of employment. The police used videotape, statements of employees and the defendant statements as well. On the day of trial, a discussion took place and an agreement that would REDUCE the charge for a FELONY to a MISDEMEANOR and place the defendant on probation for a year. Also, the charge would be a continued without a finding which mean it can be dismissed if client complies with probation agreement. The probation agreement was tailored so he will be drug-screened for a period of 12 months-but if he is clean for the first three months he does not have to engage in further screens.  Lastly, he is required to pay the out of pocket money stolen from the donut shop.

RESULT: AGREEMENT to REDUCE the FELONY to a MISDEMEANOR and a DISMISSAL will follow, if completes the term of one-year probation.

Application for Criminal Complaint, DISMISSED. 

February 5th2019
Malden District Court 
Threats to Commit a Crime Chapter 275 Section 2 

A wonderful young married couple were going through a rough patch and one spouse made an allegation murdering of the other. Police were notified and a report was appropriately taken and charges for a clerk-magistrate hearing filed. At the hearing, Attorney Barabino brought in the all the facts of the regretful statement made, and how this was an isolated situation and lastly how the couple sought therapy after the incident. In the end, and based on all the circumstances and facts, a decision was made NOT to issue the complaint. NO CRIMINAL CHARGES EVER appear on the RECORD.

RESULT: Application for Criminal Complaint, DISMISSED. 

All Charges DISMISSED

January 25th2019
Malden District Court
Resisting Arrest Chapter 268 Section 32B
Failure to Stop for Police Chapter 90 Section 25
Negligent Operation of a Motor Vehicle, Chapter 90, Section 14

Hardworking single father of two young children was arrested for Resisting Arrest, Failure to Stop for Police and Negligent Operation of a Motor Vehicle. According to police, client was wanted for assault and battery and to serve a restraining order. Police allege that he was intentionally avoiding police. When in fact he was on the phone with his lawyer (different lawyer) and simply taking his kids to soccer practice. As he left for soccer practice the police flipped on the sirens and pulled him over. They all drew their guns on the children and client. Eventually, they pushed client to the ground and fractured his elbow. All while his kids watched from the vehicle. Upon review, there was no actual warrant for his arrest. After various stages of litigation, an agreement was crafted where the Commonwealth would freeze the case in the position it was, and, if nothing else occurs (such as another arrest) , in 5 months time, the case will simply be dismissed with NO admission of wrongdoing. CHARGES ALL DISMISSED.

RESULT: All CHARGES DISMISSED, with NO admission of Wrongdoing  

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

WARRANTS RECALLED

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.

PETITION TO SEAL ALLOWED

 

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.

RESULT: PETITION TO SEAL ALLOWED

UNLICENSED OPERATION- No CHARGES

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.  

RESULT: JURY RETURNS VERDICT OF NOT GUILTY. 

sidebar_in_the_news

Contact Us

Fill out our online form