Recent Cases

May 30^th 2023
Larceny from a Building
A super pleasant hard working all around good guy was charged with Larceny from a Building. According to the police, client was seen on video at a grocery store. On the video it appears to show the client in a checkout line (empty) where he sees a wallet in the open with no apparent owner. That moment the client had a brief lapse of judgment and did what he knows he should not have done. He picked up the wallet, took out the one hundred dollars inside and placed the wallet back down. He was seen doing this on video and because of the location of the wallet and the circumstances, the police charged the defendant with the Felony charge of Larceny from a Building, which, as a felony does not qualify for a clerk magistrate hearing which is like a pre-hearing to determine if the charges should proceed. Also, he did have a prior felony conviction from his youth. However, Attorney Barabino and client went to work and developed a detailed background memorandum of the clients outstanding life, post his earlier criminal record from when he was a young man. Also, we developed a detailed legal memorandum as to why based on the actions and fact that this should be charged with larceny and not felony larceny. On the day of arraignment, client was most fortunate that he found a particularly thoughtful and reflective district attorney who postponed the arraignment so it would not appear on his record and over the course of three court dates, concluded that restitution with no arraignment will be the outcome given all the factors involved.
RESULT: Felony Larceny from a Building Dismissed PRIOR to Arraignment.

May 4^th 2023
Clerk Magistrate Hearing
Breaking and Entering for a Misdemeanor
A hard-working young professional was walking home from a bar when he walked into the home of a middle-aged woman at around 3:30 a.m. The woman was clearly and understandably startled. The young man was intoxicated and confused. The police acted quickly, and they interviewed the individual and make the decision that this client was simply intoxicated and confused and had no intent to break into the woman’s home. The woman was kind and allowed the police to use their discretion in what course of action they took. The police filed for a clerk magistrate hearing. In preparation for the hearing, client (on his own) began therapy, Attorney Barabino drafted up a background affidavit on client and his actions that evening. Also, client wrote an apology letter for the woman. In the end, the clerk chooses not to go forward. Client was certainly grateful for this opportunity to not have to put on any future background check that he does not have a criminal record, since, as in this case, when successful in a magistrate hearing, it does not enter on any criminal record.
RESULT: CLERK Magistrate Does NOT Charge Client with Breaking and Entering

May 3^rd 2023
Clerk Magistrate Hearing
Operating with Revoked Insurance
A very pleasant international student was charged with allowing someone to drive his vehicle on revoked insurance. The case had a scheduled clerk magistrate hearing and what came next was the preparation. Often Magistrates are open minded to not issuing the complaint on cases where the insurance is revoked, depending on the circumstances. Some issues are if there was an accident, if the person has a prior criminal record, the facts of the stop such as other criminal offenses and finally, if the person is apologetic and remorseful and that they now have insurance, or the vehicle is not on the road any longer. If all those things are absent then the probability of success goes from high to very high. Here, none of the factors existed and we presented an affidavit that summarized the background and history of the accused, as well as evidence of his licensure and current and valid insurance. In the end, the clerk and the professional state trooper were most accepting of our request not to issue. The complaint does not issue. As a result, the client never has to write on immigration paperwork that he was accused of a crime, or any background check. His record remains clean.
RESULT: Magistrate DOES NOT Issue the Complaint.

April 28^th 2023
Domestic Assault and Battery
Client was a super single mom doing all the right things raising her son. In the process of raising her son she sought to take his cell phone from him. She did take his cell phone but then he tried to get it back from her. She was forced to call the police when he became physical with her in his efforts to retrieve the phone. The police came and arrested mother and not son. It was a worst-case scenario and very scary. Most every police department has a mandatory arrest policy for Domestic Abuse cases and apparently the took the child’s story as more credible. She was arrested and told to report to court the following Monday. Fortunately, Attorney Barabino and client were able to work through the weekend and develop information needed for the arraignment. Whereas it is a domestic there is no diversion, judicial diversion or alternative. However, Attorney Barabino approached the DA with these special circumstances, and he dismissed the “domestic” portion of the Assault and Battery prior to the arraignment and also agreed to put the arraignment off. Over the next several months Attorney Barabino was able to work with the client and Department of Children and Family. That investigation warranted a “Unsupported” determination for physical abuse. Then we filed a judicial diversion since she now qualified. We entered a at home parenting computer program and today the charge was dismissed prior to the formal arraignment which means there will be not entry in any court docket.
RESULT: Pre-Arraignment Domestic Dismissed.

April 14^th 2023
Resisting Arrest
Failure to Provide Identification
Failure to Provide Identification (2)
2 Civil Citations
Client was a pleasant, hardworking father who had just left this child birthday party. After the birthday party, he simply pulled over his licensed and insured motor vehicle. However, as he sat quietly in the driver’s seat of his vehicle, a person, dressed in civilian clothes said they were a police officer demanded his license. Startled, concerned, and confused, he and the person, who ended up being an officer charged him with resisting arrest and failure to provide a license and 2 civil citations. The officer declared that Lawrence was “his city”. In the end, truly disturbing conduct. A petition was filed for judicial diversion and that was taken under advisement and denied. Eventually, a motion to suppress was filed and a hearing conducting which resulted in extracting evidence (via testimony) of this officer. Upon meeting the officer at court, he just as my client described him; indignant, self-righteous one of the worse creep factors in nearly twenty years of practicing. As a disclaimer, I find and overwhelming majority of police officers decent, approachable, and reasonable people. But this officer was disturbing. In fact, this officer stated that he didn’t send a second request for a second charge, but we still question his veracity. In the end, Attorney Barabino was preparing the case for one conclusion, which was a trial. However, client was eager to move away from this area and attempt to see if there was something that he could do to close the case and move on—and not get a guilty conviction or worse. As a result, a plea was struck for client to admit to sufficient facts for two criminal violations where the case will be dismissed in 180 days, and the civil violations are found not responsible. Also, the District Attorney had agreed to a motion to dismiss on 2^nd charge. Also, expungement on one of the two failure to provide ID charge.
RESULT: Criminal Case results in 180 Days Crime Free = Dismissal.

April 13^th 2023
Brave Act
OUI 1^st Offense
Leaving the Scene of Property Damage, 3 Counts
Client was charged with first offense OUI and three counts of leaving the scene after property damage. According to police, client had been driving his truck when he struck three inordinate objects. The client was arrested and charged with the above crimes. The leaving the scene charges were particularly weak since it was an automobile accident where the evidence was scant. Nonetheless, he was charged with the crimes, including OUI. Whereas he is a war veteran he was eligible for the Brave Act. The Brave Act is a law that allows for veterans who have served overseas and as a result of their service encountered some condition that contributed to the allegations. Here, the client was super diligent as he was already enrolled in the program without any delay. He also continued with aftercare. After a couple court dates, the petition from the Veterans Administration was submitted to the court. The District Attorney objected to the dismissal request, but the judge found that the elements of the act have been satisfied and dismissed all the charges. The crimes were then dismissed and client discharged.
RESULT: Brave Act Dismissal

April 7, 2023
License to Carry Reinstatement
Client was a respectable military veteran seeking to reinstate his suspended license to carry. Before consulting Attorney Barabino, Client asked for the help of another well-regarded attorney who declined his case. After reviewing his options with Attorney Barabino, Attorney Barabino and Client agreed to an inexpensive and effective plan to address the issue. Attorney Barabino presented the police chief with detailed background information on Client to contextualize a restraining order and prior dismissed criminal cases leading to the license suspension. Attorney Barabino and the chief spoke and Attorney Barabino made his case on why the law on suitability favored reinstatement. The chief ultimately decided in Client’s favor.
RESULT: LTC reinstated at low cost to client and without going to court

April 7, 2023
Larceny Over $1,200
Clerk Magistrate Hearing
Client was a bright young man charged with Larceny Over $1,200, a felony in Massachusetts. According to the police report, Client allegedly stole two iPhones from his shipping company employer. Before Attorney Barabino was retained, police conducted a very detailed and thorough investigation of the incident. Part of this investigation included an examination of Client’s cellphone which Client voluntarily gave to police before consulting Attorney Barabino. After police filed their application for a criminal complaint, police used their discretion to ask for a clerk magistrate’s hearing to review the case. A clerk magistrate’s hearing is an opportunity for a person accused of a crime to challenge the existence of probable cause for charges to issue. During these hearings, clerks have discretion in some cases to find probable cause but not order a criminal complaint to issue. This is exactly what happened here. Presiding clerk magistrate decided not to issue charges. Client had no prior criminal record and found success in life despite starting with many struggles, but moves forward without additional struggle of a felony criminal charge.
RESULT: Finding of probable cause but charges NOT to issue; client has no criminal record