Recent Cases

June 23, 2023
Negligent Operation of a Motor Vehicle
Clerk Magistrate Hearing
A CDL driver crashed into a business while driving. The police were polite and respectful as was the client. They quickly responded to the accident scene and drove him home. However, he was given a citation for negligent operation of a motor vehicle. The client sent the ticket within 4 days to the court as Attorney Barabino instructed and was given a date for a future hearing. In preparation for the hearing, client and Attorney Barabino developed an affidavit of the incident and supporting documentation. At the hearing, the Clerk Magistrate agreed that it will not go to arraignment and client’s record, and CDL license remain fully intact.
Result: Complaint Does NOT Issue Against CDL Driver.

June 21, 2023
Probation Violation
An established, and impressive researcher had been on probation for an underlying incident for which Attorney Barabino did not represent him. As he was fulfilling his probation obligations he made a misstep which triggered a violation of probation. Attorney Barabino represented him on that probation violation and after a hearing he was essentially reprobated—meaning no change in his probation. Additionally, Attorney Barabino filed an additional memorandum and affidavits to request the sentencing judge to change the conditions of the initial plea, particularly the drug testing and GPS requirement and consider ending probation altogether. The judge issued a decision and agreed in part, which was to remove the condition of the daily drug screen for the client, which provided the client some level of relief.
Result: Probation Reprobated & One Condition of Probation Eliminated.

June 21, 2023
LTC Reinstatement
A particularly pleasant professional came because of a Suspension Notice for his License to Carry a Firearm (LTC) because of being considered “unsuitable”. The law permits someone who is deemed “unsuitable” to appeal the decision within 90 days of receipt of the formal notice. The appeal process is filed in District Court at which time the judge would hear testimony from all the parties and if the judge decided (and sided) with the police department, that the individual would be forever deemed unsuitable. Here, Attorney Barabino and client reviewed the facts surrounding the suspension and decided to approach the department with some background on the client, the family and the scenario surrounding the underlying event. Without delay, they drafted a detailed summary letter on client and a supporting affidavit and provided them to the officer. That officer responded promptly and agreed that this was an isolated incident, and he would reinstate the license without a hearing and return the firearms that were still in police custody. The police have a challenging job when they issue firearms licenses and revoke them for issues of unsuitability. The police (generally) want to get it right. They don’t want to be responsible for someone hurting themselves or others with a firearm; nor do they want to deprive someone of the right to a firearm. As a result, it is important and helpful (if possible) to attempt to address the concerns of the police department and avoid the cost and consequences of litigation for all involved.
Result: License to Carry Reinstated.

June 15, 2023
OUI 1st Offense
A very pleasant young woman with no prior record was accused of operating under the influence of alcohol. According to police in or about 2:45 a.m. client was operating her vehicle at a high rate of speed (50 mph in a 25 mph zone). The vehicle then traveled approximately 100 yards in the wrong lane of traffic when the vehicle was then stopped. Upon being stopped, the officer smelled the odor of alcohol and when asked they admitted they were at “the bar”. Also, an admission of 4 alcohol drinks. When asked she gave her inspection report and license and not her registration and license as requested. She was asked to perform field sobriety test and according to the officer failed the test. Also, the police were observant and noticed a freshly discarded drink which is presumed to be an alcoholic one like the empty one inside the vehicle. However, the police also mentioned the client was cooperative and our viewing of the booking video demonstrated a high level of sobriety. Given everything on balance client chose to accept a plea deal that would ensure that she would not be exposed to a conviction and did receive a continuance without a finding. This continuance without a finding provides that if she completes one year of probation then this case will be dismissed. Also, as part of the agreement, she receives both civil violations as a not-responsible—protecting her from even higher insurance bills and surcharges.
Result: OUI 1^st Plea

June 15, 2023
(Felony) Vandalize Property (2 counts)
A very pleasant young single mom was accused of vandalizing a vehicle of an ex-partner and acting unpleasant and unwelcoming to the prior partner and the prior partner’s new girlfriend. There had been a variety of allegations between the parties. The prior relationship was tumultuous, and the breakup had not gone well. According to police, the “vandalism” was writing expletives in erasable marker on the vehicle of ex-partner. Even though it was erasable, it was sufficient to obtain a summons by police for vandalism. The client was arraigned and then hired Attorney Barabino. Together they began a detailed background of the client and review of strategy and approach. Whereas the client had no prior record and the charge qualified for judicial diversion which would force a dismissal of the matter, they began to draft a petition. The petition for judicial diversion included a motion and memorandum of law, as well as a background memorandum of the client. Also, included was an affidavit of Attorney Barabino outlining the remedial programs that he would have her attend (virtually). At the next court appearance, the District Attorney reviewed the petition and agreed they would simply let her leave court, no admission of wrongdoing or guilt and they would dismiss it in 180 days. The process is called pre-trial probation or a general continuance. That was an easy decision as it assured dismissal of the felony charge, admitted to nothing, and does not have to do any program.
Result: Felony Vandalism Dismissal

May 31, 2023
Assault and Battery on a Police Officer
Reckless Endangerment of a Child
Disorderly Conduct
A pleasant hard-working dad took the day off to spend with his two young children. When this person is not drinking, he is as diplomatic, polite and responsible—however add alcohol to him and the decency, charm and judgment vanishes---rapidly. According to police, he was at an ice cream establishment and bar, and he was intoxicated. Client was refused service due to his intoxication and arguing with people around him. The police stated that the children’s diapers had feces on them as well as on the child’s legs. Client began berating the police with vile names causing increased concern for law enforcement. Moreover, client was holding his children. Eventually, client took his hand and pushed the officer which was assault and battery. He was arrested. Client had had past operating under the influence and the family testified that they had a variety of concerns. The mother of the children took out a restraining order as well. Client and Attorney Barabino worked for nearly a year. Eventually, getting the restraining order dismissed. Client committed to sobriety and passed 100% of his alcohol screens, he submitted a hair follicle test which was clean and remained employed. At the plea, that information was submitted with a disposition memorandum. At the hearing, the Commonwealth had already agreed based on past discussion to dismiss the Assault and Battery charge. Eventually, the judge decided that the two remaining charges can be dismissed after a one-year period of time and an admission to sufficient facts. Also, three months of additional drug and alcohol screens.
Result: Assault and Battery of Police Officer Dropped.

May 30, 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 client’s 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 facts, this should be charged as 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, 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 made 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 chose 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