Recent Cases

September 8, 2026
Operating After License Suspension for OUI
Leaving the Scene of Personal Injury
The client was involved in a car accident and left the scene. He was charged with leaving the scene of personal injury and with operating after a license suspension for OUI. Operating after a license suspension for OUI carries a mandatory minimum of sixty days in jail — it cannot be suspended, served on house arrest, or monitored by GPS, and there is no parole. Leaving the scene of personal injury carries exposure to a six-month jail sentence if incarceration is imposed, a guilty conviction, and a one-year loss of license. The client did not have a valid license and did not follow instructions at the scene. There was no interest in resolving the case short of trial. After a full review of discovery, a visit to the accident scene, interviews, and review of video, a trial was scheduled. Fortunately, for a variety of reasons, the case was dismissed. The District Attorney indicated an expectation that the leaving-the-scene charge may be refiled — which they are permitted to do — but at present both charges have been dismissed. Most importantly, the mandatory-minimum exposure for operating after a license suspension for OUI is gone.
Result: Mandatory Minimum Dismissed. Leaving the Scene of Personal Injury Dismissed.

September 1, 2026
Improper Storage of a Firearm
276A Diversion
The client is a licensed firearm owner. During a transaction at a store, he left a firearm in an enclosed bag. The store found the bag shortly afterward and called the police. The client was already on his way back. No one was exposed to the firearm. Police sought a criminal charge for improper storage, as a matter of due diligence. Although G.L. c. 276A diversion is not available for other firearms charges, it is available for improper storage. Attorney Barabino identified programming, and the client enrolled in the Commonwealth’s basic firearm safety certificate course, completing it with a diploma, and in Handguns 101 through the same professional. The court approved diversion. The case has been dismissed. Going forward, the client will store a firearm more carefully — and, more importantly, without a criminal record.
Result: Improper Storage Diverted. CASE DISMISSED.

August 25, 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 19, 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. Because he was not yet a citizen, a guilty conviction or admission to sufficient facts could result in serious immigration problems. The police report detailed the basis of the arrest, which was that he was in a school parking lot picking up his child when he was found slumped over the steering wheel of his car—with the key in the ignition. A nip of alcohol was found in his pants with several empty nips and beer 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 was not guilty.
Result: OUI or .08 Breath Test Reading Results 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. From the outset, the primary goal was to sever the threats charge from the OUI charge among other things. Because guilt on the threats 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 a 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