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.