Recent Cases

April 7, 2023
Larceny Over $1,200
Clerk Magistrate Hearing
Client was a bright young man charged with Larceny Over $1,200, a felony in Massachusetts. According to the police report, Client allegedly stole two iPhones from his shipping company employer. Before Attorney Barabino was retained, police conducted a very detailed and thorough investigation of the incident. Part of this investigation included an examination of Client’s cellphone which Client voluntarily gave to police before consulting Attorney Barabino. After police filed their application for a criminal complaint, police used their discretion to ask for a clerk magistrate’s hearing to review the case. A clerk magistrate’s hearing is an opportunity for a person accused of a crime to challenge the existence of probable cause for charges to issue. During these hearings, clerks have discretion in some cases to find probable cause but not order a criminal complaint to issue. This is exactly what happened here. Presiding clerk magistrate decided not to issue charges. Client had no prior criminal record and found success in life despite starting with many struggles, but moves forward without additional struggle of a felony criminal charge.
RESULT: Finding of probable cause but charges NOT to issue; client has no criminal record

April 6, 2023
Operating Under the Influence of Intoxicating Liquor
Civil Motor Vehicle Infraction
Client was a pleasant father and businessman viewed by police leaving an establishment serving alcohol. An officer observed Client driving in his car the wrong direction down a one-way street. Although he was not traveling fast, this was enough to pull him over. The officer observed Client with glassy eyes, an odor, and slightly slurred speech. Client also admitted to drinking alcohol, which the officer noted in his report. After this interaction, the officer asked Client to get out of his car and observed brief unsteadiness. He was arrested and at the station blew .18% during his breach test. Breath tests are admissible again in a number of counties in Massachusetts, including where this case took place in Middlesex. After consultations with Attorney Barabino, Client and his family agreed with Attorney Barabino’s suggestion that the best course of action would be to seek a plea. Client’s plea was accepted by the court and Client is happy to put this chapter of his life behind him.
RESULT: Continuation Without a Finding and civil citation dismissed

April 4^th 2023
Assault & Battery on an Elder Person Causing Bodily Injury
Client was a pleasant young man who got into a dispute with his mother. According to the police report son was causing a disruption at his mother’s home. Son had a history of abuse of alcohol though no prior criminal record. Mother called her sister for support and sister then called 911. Police quickly arrived on the scene and mother briefly detailed a brief physical altercation with her son. Those facts were sufficient for the police to arrest son and have him charged with the crime of assault and battery on a person over 60. However, the police charged son with assault and battery on a person over 60 w/injury. The injury part is a much more serious felony offense. When attorney Barabino got the case, the began by drafting a background memorandum on client, a motion to dismiss the “with injury” portion of the criminal complaint and a motion to amend the courts stay away order. After a brief consultation with the DA and the submission of the above legal memorandums, there was an agreement to have a trial readiness date or (“TRC”). This was very advantageous to the client as mother had since recanted her recollection of events and the case would most likely be dismissed since there was no other collateral evidence in this case such as visible injuries, medical records, 3^rd party witnesses, or 911 recordings, which is often the case. The district attorneys take every case seriously, but they are particularly attentive to cases involving people who are deemed elderly per the statute. In this matter, the DA was unable to prosecute the case whereas the mother’s testimony was recanted leaving no viable case to prosecute. Case Dismissed and Closed.
RESULT: A/B on Elderly w/Serious Bodily Injury Dismissed.

March 29^th 2023
Carrying a Firearm w/o a License
Armed Career Criminal Level III
Possession of a Large Possession Feeding Device
Client was a young man with some varied prior involvement with the law, in summary he was a convicted felon with a long criminal history. He also had a drug problem and was abusing drugs. His case began when he was found at a state of overdose at a fast-food establishment. Police were called to the scene and the client was taken away in an ambulance for treatment. Police then searched the vehicle that he was driving as he was allowed to do. When they searched the vehicle they found a loaded firearm in a bag that had a large capacity feeding device attached to it. With the discovery of the firearm, they sent out a warrant for his arrest. He turned himself into court and he was sentenced to a year on a probation violation for this event. At that point his family retained Attorney Barabino. Attorney Barabino began with a several visits to the jail to interview client as well as interviewing the family. We took that information and gathering it into affidavits of support and provided that to the District Attorney and planned for his arraignment on the new indictments noted above. The District Attorney was receptive and appreciative of the materials provided and that aided in securing his release on a lower bail and no conditions of release. Once the client was released we had a twofold plan. One was to vigorously defend the charges and at the same time, have client begin a process of rehabilitation that would be so impressive that the District Attorney would be open (and could justify) a reduction of the charges. The charges called for a state prison term and the ACC or Armed Career Criminal indictment was a post-conviction 15-year prison enhancement on any conviction. In the end, the District Attorney(s) who represented the Commonwealth balanced all the factors and an agreement was made for a dismissal of the “ACC” indictment and also, an agreement on a disparate presentation before the judge for sentencing. The judge, eventually agreed with the defendant, in large part for his relentless pursuit and success at rehabilitation.
RESULT: Armed Career Criminal, Dismissed, Possession of Large Capacity Feeding Device, Dismissed, Defense Tender of Disparate Plea, HOC time on Firearm w/Jail Credit.

March 23^rd 2023
Conspiracy
Larceny over $1200
Unlawful Possession of a Theft Detection Device
Unlawful Deactivation or Removal of Theft Detection Device
Client was a young man with no criminal record. According to police, he was in a higher end store with another individual when security from the story concluded that he was stealing high end jackets. Security then contacted the local police who then traveled to the store. When the security tried to apprehend the youth, he ran, but were stopped by police and an arrest was made. They were interviewed in the store security office and asked some questions. It was then that they discovered that the client had a basic, but sophisticated device that was able to deactivate the security tags on the clothing. Client was booked and charged with a variety of felony offenses. Fortunately, client was charged and released on a weekend before the arraignment where he met with Attorney Barabino. It was during this weekend strategy session Attorney Barabino developed a plan to petition the court, pre-arraignment for a judicial diversion. On the day of arraignment, the plan was deemed successful, and he was deferred for consideration of diversion. The importance of that brief diversion cannot be understated since, if successfully admitted to diversion, he never gets arraigned, and the case never shows up in a court document. As the process went, client was successfully admitted to the diversion and completed a required program. The next scheduled court date the case was dismissed, BEFORE it was arraigned, leaving no evidence or any wrongdoing, anywhere.
RESULT: Felony Charge(s) Do Not Issue.

March 16^th 2023
Domestic Assault and Battery
Client was a pleasant hard working Registered Nurse who was charged with Domestic Assault and Battery. The person who made the allegations was her soon to be ex-husband. According to the police, ex-husband called 911 emergency and reported what he said was an assault. Police responded and they did what they normally do which is interview all the people involved on the scene. In this case, the police decided that there was probable cause to arrest our client and did so. Most police departments will not arrest a person for a misdemeanor offense which didn’t occur in their presence—however, many police departments have a mandatory arrest policy for allegations of domestic violence which requires them to do so. In this case she was arrested. Eventually, after arraignment she hired Attorney Barabino and then they began the journey of navigating the criminal justice system. Today, after a couple court dates, a Trial Readiness Conference was called, and the Commonwealth declared they were unable to proceed, and the case was dismissed in its entirety.
RESULT: Charges of Domestic A&B Dismissed at TRC Date.

February 17^th 2023
Possession of “CP”
Distribution of “CP”Client was all around pleasant married adult who was charged with possession and distribution of “CP”. According to the police reports, police had done an extensive investigation of the accused. According to them, he has possessed and distributed impermissible videos and images. The importance of the distribution portion of the allegation cannot be understated. The reason is that it cannot be understated is that distribution (sending) just one image or video is sufficient for the government to be successful in that separate and additional charge. That particular statute also requires that the Defendant be prosecuted in Superior Court, not the District Court. In conclusion, the penalty for that charge is higher. Regardless, we asked the District Attorney for additional time to make a review of the evidence and determine the probability of various defenses and discuss the ability to negotiate a plea deal in the lower court. They agreed and were very patient with us as we took nearly a year and made various reviews of what they had and how they got what they did. The goal was to see if they would dismiss the “distribution” charge and not indict the defendant. The police did a detailed investigation which involved several warrants of phones and computers and internet providers. They also had interviewed client prior to client retaining Attorney Barabino. In the end, a deal was struck as hoped for in the lower court which resulted in the dismissal of the distribution charge. The plea in the lower court resulted in now jail time and a probationary period of three years, with additional conditions.
RESULT: CP Distribution with NO Jail.

January 26^th 2023
Violation of Probation
Larceny over $1200
Client was a seasoned and experienced licensed electrician and great father. He was accused by a homeowner of accepting payment for a job and not completing the job. Although client has done some work and the homeowner had some legitimate grievances, that homeowner choose to report client to the police alleging that he was a victim of the Larceny over $1200. This charge is a felony in Massachusetts. This was problematic since the client was already on probation at the time, for theft related charges, in another court. Attorney Barabino had to fix each case in a separately. Strategically speaking, attacking the probation case made the most sense since it would be difficult find any favorable resolution of the larceny case with an open probation violation for a similar charge. On the probation matter, the probation department asked for a guilty conviction to enter on client’s record. We declined that offer and sought a full hearing. At the hearing, Attorney Barabino submitted a lengthy memorandum of law, complete with a background memorandum and supporting documentation. Also, he elicited testimony from his client and at the conclusion of the hearing the judge kept the probation same terms and same end date, no change with a verbal admonishment and nothing more. After that success, eventually we were able to negotiate with the second court that a reasonable disposition which was to simply pay back the person who says they are owed money and dismiss the felony charge which they agreed to do if the client pays within 60 days. In the end, the client’s success on his underlying probation case made the 2nd case resolve with ease.
RESULT: No Convictions or Punishment or Probation.