Recent Cases

October 21, 2026
209A Restraining Order
Our client faced restraining order requests from two family members, her mother and her sister. One filed an affidavit describing a weak claim of threats and a series of incidents they said amounted to harassing behavior directed at them. And the other affidavit was similar, minus the threats. The family had recently experienced some significant life stressors and that played a role in the tension of the household. We showed the court the context behind those claims. The client’s sister, while passionate and zealous, had been acting in good faith and trying to do her best in a supportive role. Like many families, theirs had moments of heated, inflammatory language. Massachusetts law sets a clear standard for issuing an abuse prevention order, though, and heated words between family members do not meet it on their own. We argued the evidence fell short of that standard. The judge agreed and denied the plaintiffs’ requests.
Result: Order Not Issued Against Our Client.

October 9, 2026
Assault by Means of a Dangerous Weapon (Knife), M.G.L. c. 265, § 15B
Our client, a professional, was arrested and charged with assault by means of a dangerous weapon, a felony. The charge came from an argument with her then-boyfriend, who told police she came at him with a knife. Police found him sweating in a hoodie with his clothing torn around the neck, but he had no visible injury. Officers recovered a kitchen knife from the coffee table. Both parties had been drinking, and each accused the other, including competing claims about who was the first aggressor and who had damaged personal property. We were retained at arraignment. From the first day, we made sure no stay-away order went into effect, and we advocated for our client from the start. That advocacy included affidavits of support, a background memorandum about our client, and ongoing work with the Commonwealth as the case went on. The case also raised real evidentiary questions. There was a video of the incident, but it could not be obtained. There was also a 911 recording that likely contained an excited utterance, which could have let the Commonwealth try the case without the alleged victim's testimony. In the end, the case was resolved with pretrial probation. Our client will complete an online anger-management class and a mental-health screening. Once those conditions are met, the case will be dismissed, protecting our client's record and professional career.
Result: Presumption of Innocence and No Record for This Professional.

September 17, 2026
Leaving the Scene of Property Damage
Assault / Dangerous Weapon
Reckless Endangerment of a Child
Reckless Operation of a Motor Vehicle
Client was an Army veteran from out of state who was visiting an old friend and helping drive her daughter to school. There was a brief altercation after someone rear-ended him. That person claimed the client brake-checked them and caused the accident. At one point the client got out of the car, raised a crowbar, and then fled the scene. The entire incident was caught on video from multiple angles, in part because it was near a public school. A warrant issued for the client's arrest. The client contacted Attorney Barabino. They quickly met, interviewed, prepared for turning himself in, and did in fact turn him in. The District Attorney sought that he be detained on cash bail. Attorney Barabino opposed that, and the judge agreed — he was released. During this time we reviewed all the video and discovery over the next couple of months. We also determined that he had a service connection for anxiety from decades ago and were able to make the connection between the anxiety and this incident. As a result he qualified for the BRAVE Act. After a motion and a hearing before a judge, he completed many months of treatment. At the end we received notification that he had completed the BRAVE Act, and as a result this case was dismissed in its entirety.
Result: BRAVE Act — all charges resolved; full dismissal.

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.