Recent Cases

May 20, 2026
Magistrate Hearing
Shoplifting by Asportation over $250
Shoplifting by Asportation under $250
Shoplifting by Asportation over $250
Shoplifting by Asportation over $250
Shoplifting by Asportation over $250
The client was a seasoned college administrator, a responsible adult, and a mother. She was accused of taking items from a particular store on five separate occasions. The evidence against her was strong. We promptly obtained the report and secured a continuance of the scheduled hearing date. The client then began therapy and completed a background evaluation that included counseling sessions. She also paid the store’s civil demand in full and completed two online courses addressing her behavior. At the hearing, the magistrate and police agreed—reluctantly—not to issue the complaint, provided that the client paid the remaining amount through Attorney Barabino and completed 30 hours of community service. As a result, no complaint issued.
RESULT:

May 14, 2026
Magistrate Hearing
Assault
Client was a seasoned professional with no criminal history and no prior contact with the criminal justice system. On the morning in question, while hurrying to work, another vehicle stopped suddenly, nearly causing a collision. What followed was a brief but regrettable roadside exchange after the parties pulled alongside one another. Although the client denied key aspects of the allegation—including the claim that he used a racial slur—it was alleged that he tossed coins, some of which struck the other individual. The client did not attempt to justify his conduct. Instead, he acknowledged that he had been under extraordinary stress, exercised poor judgment in a fleeting moment, and responded in a manner wholly inconsistent with his character. Importantly, there was no police observation of the incident, and the matter proceeded by way of Clerk Magistrate Hearing only. That distinction proved critical. When charges were sought, the application was limited to Assault—not Assault and Battery, and certainly not Assault and Battery on a person over 60, a far more serious felony offense. More importantly, by the time of the hearing, the client had already taken meaningful and concrete steps toward accountability and rehabilitation. He completed multiple courses for self-improvement, and we presented those efforts directly to the court as evidence that this isolated event did not define him. The alleged victim also appeared at the hearing, and her position was measured and compassionate. She wanted the client to understand the seriousness of his behavior, and he did. He offered a sincere apology, which she accepted. Considering that apology, his evident remorse, his proactive rehabilitative efforts, and the absence of any prior record, the court declined to allow the case to proceed. The result was the just one: no complaint issued, no criminal record created, and no lasting professional harm imposed for conduct the client fully recognized was wrong and had taken genuine steps to address.
RESULT: PC Does NOT Issue Complaint. Career Saved Through Accountability, Preparation, and a Just Result.

May 14, 2026
Magistrate Hearing
Assault
Client was a seasoned professional with no criminal history and no prior contact with the criminal justice system. On the morning in question, while hurrying to work, another vehicle stopped suddenly, nearly causing a collision. What followed was a brief but regrettable roadside exchange after the parties pulled alongside one another. Although the client denied key aspects of the allegation—including the claim that he used a racial slur—it was alleged that he tossed coins, some of which struck the other individual. The client did not attempt to justify his conduct. Instead, he acknowledged that he had been under extraordinary stress, exercised poor judgment in a fleeting moment, and responded in a manner wholly inconsistent with his character. Importantly, there was no police observation of the incident, and the matter proceeded by way of Clerk Magistrate Hearing only. That distinction proved critical. When charges were sought, the application was limited to Assault—not Assault and Battery, and certainly not Assault and Battery on a person over 60, a far more serious felony offense. More importantly, by the time of the hearing, the client had already taken meaningful and concrete steps toward accountability and rehabilitation. He completed multiple courses for self-improvement, and we presented those efforts directly to the court as evidence that this isolated event did not define him. The alleged victim also appeared at the hearing, and her position was measured and compassionate. She wanted the client to understand the seriousness of his behavior, and he did. He offered a sincere apology, which she accepted. Considering that apology, his evident remorse, his proactive rehabilitative efforts, and the absence of any prior record, the court declined to allow the case to proceed. The result was the just one: no complaint issued, no criminal record created, and no lasting professional harm imposed for conduct the client fully recognized was wrong and had taken genuine steps to address.
RESULT: PC Does NOT Issue Complaint. Career Saved Through Accountability, Preparation, and a Just Result.

May 13, 2026
Negligent Operation of a Motor Vehicle
Client was a young woman who was pulled over while driving. According to police she was driving at an excessive speed and passed over the yellow line to get around a slow operating vehicle. What the police allege was accurate in their description. Whether a someone’s driving is negligent is discretionary since the law is somewhat vague as to what constitutes negligent operation. Nonetheless, her operation was sufficient under the law for the criminal offense. The first thing Attorney Barabino had the client do was to provide the citation which she was given to the magistrate within the mandatory 4-day window. She quickly complied and she prepared with attorney Barabino for what would be the eventual magistrate hearing. In preparing for the hearing, she also attended a remedial driving course. At the hearing the magistrate and officer somewhat reluctantly decided that yes, they will not move the case for arraignment, which will ensure that her record remains fully clean and unblemished.
RESULT: Probable Cause, But does Not Issue. No Charge Issues. No Criminal Record.

May 1, 2026
Negligent Operation of a Motor Vehicle
Client was a young man with an open warrant unbeknownst to him. Due to concerning behavior while driving a vehicle, he was pulled over for speeding and charged with criminal negligent operation. Client’s aunt contacted Attorney Barabino. Despite the warrant, client was allowed to remain out of custody until a magistrate’s hearing. Attorney Barabino enrolled him in Brains at Risk prior to the hearing and the magistrate found no probable cause after Attorney Barabino's presentment.
RESULT: No Probable Cause. No Charge Issues. No Criminal Record.

April 29, 2026
Assault & Battery on a Family or Household Member
Client was a minor with a girlfriend who was also a minor. While at school, client pushed his girlfriend and as a result was transported to the hospital via ambulance. The event was captured on camera. There was also concern due to a prior event that was witnessed by the father of the girlfriend. At a magistrate’s hearing the facts and background were presented. It was helpful that the school, young lady, and father supported a restorative justice solution. Also, Attorney Barabino ensured that client connected with a therapist and had him participate in a rehabilitation program with Third Millennium classrooms. The magistrate held the hearing open for a couple of months. If client stays out of trouble, the charge will not issue. Clients criminal record and criminal history will be fully clean and not record of this incident.
RESULT: Charge Will Not Issue If Client Remains Out of Trouble. No Record.

April 13, 2026
Negligent Operation
Unlicensed Operation
Use without Authority
Liquor Possession under 21
Leaving the Scene of Property Damage
A loving family with a loving, healthy productive son was summoned into juvenile court for a variety of charges. After receiving the summons, we quickly advised client to submit the citation within 4 days so that they be entitled to clerk magistrate hearing. That task was successful and an eventual magistrate hearing was conducted. During this time, Attorney Barabino and family worked to provide a variety of mitigation steps, such as driver courses and other programming. At the hearing, the clerk dismissed two of the five charges and referred the case to diversion. However, diversion rejected the case due to its seriousness, and the matter was eventually arraigned. Eventually, a trial viability date was held which was today and the remaining charges were dismissed, due to identification, 5^th amendments, and child parent exception. The case took some time to move through the court but very fortunate to have all the charges now dismissed.
RESULT: Variety of Cases, All Dismissed.

April 13, 2026
Assault and Battery
Clerk Magistrate Hearing
A super pleasant, relaxed person was simply out with his dog. While sitting on the phone watching his dog he got into an unexpected argument with another attendee to the park. The incident escalated and eventually the other party called the police. Police came and spoke to both client and the other party who called the police. The police determined that my client was at fault to a degree and determined that the person who called the police should be charged with a criminal offense. The formal term for this is cross complaints. This is a very advantageous position since often, if all the parties agree, including the police and the magistrate that matter does not have to get issued, they will agree to simply dismiss it. However, the court is under no obligation to do so. Fortunately, prior to the hearing, the other party and client were able to make the more proper introduction and move forward in agreement that this was an uneventful station, and lessons were learned and it won’t be repeated. The magistrate kindly adopted a mutual dismissal which was in the best interest for all. Justice served for all
RESULT: Cross Complaint Serves Justice for All.