Recent Cases

April 14, 2023
Resisting Arrest
Failure to Provide Identification
Failure to Provide Identification (2)
2 Civil Citations
Client was a pleasant, hardworking father who had just left his child’s birthday party. After the birthday party, he simply pulled over his licensed and insured motor vehicle. However, as he sat quietly in the driver’s seat of his vehicle, a person, dressed in civilian clothes said they were a police officer and demanded his license. Startled, concerned, and confused, he and the person, who ended up being an officer, charged him with resisting arrest and failure to provide a license and 2 civil citations. The officer declared that Lawrence was his city”. In the end, truly disturbing conduct. A petition was filed for judicial diversion and that was taken under advisement and denied. Eventually, a motion to suppress was filed and a hearing conducted which resulted in extracting evidence (via testimony) of this officer. Upon meeting the officer at court, he was just as the client described him; indignant, self-righteous one of the worst creep factors in nearly twenty years of practicing. As a disclaimer, I find an overwhelming majority of police officers decent, approachable, and reasonable people. But this officer was disturbing. In fact, this officer stated that he didn’t send a second request for a second charge, but we still question his veracity. In the end, Attorney Barabino was preparing the case for one conclusion, which was a trial. However, client was eager to move away from this area and attempt to see if there was something that he could do to close the case and move on—and not get a guilty conviction or worse. As a result, a plea was struck for client to admit to sufficient facts for two criminal violations where the case will be dismissed in 180 days, and the civil violations are found not responsible. Also, the District Attorney had agreed to a motion to dismiss on 2^nd charge. Also, expungement on one of the two failure-to-provide-ID charges.
Result: Criminal Case results in 180 Days Crime Free = Dismissal.

April 13, 2023
Brave Act
OUI 1^st Offense
Leaving the Scene of Property Damage, 3 Counts
Client was charged with first offense OUI and three counts of leaving the scene after property damage. According to police, client had been driving his truck when he struck three inanimate objects. The client was arrested and charged with the above crimes. The leaving the scene charges were particularly weak since it was an automobile accident where the evidence was scant. Nonetheless, he was charged with the crimes, including OUI. Whereas he is a war veteran he was eligible for the Brave Act. The Brave Act is a law that allows for veterans who have served overseas and as a result of their service encountered some condition that contributed to the allegations. Here, the client was super diligent as he was already enrolled in the program without any delay. He also continued with aftercare. After a couple court dates, the petition from the Veterans Administration was submitted to the court. The District Attorney objected to the dismissal request, but the judge found that the elements of the act have been satisfied and dismissed all the charges. The crimes were then dismissed and client discharged.
Result: Brave Act Dismissal

April 7, 2023
License to Carry Reinstatement
Client was a respectable military veteran seeking to reinstate his suspended license to carry. Before consulting Attorney Barabino, Client asked for the help of another well-regarded attorney who declined his case. After reviewing his options with Attorney Barabino, Attorney Barabino and Client agreed to an inexpensive and effective plan to address the issue. Attorney Barabino presented the police chief with detailed background information on Client to contextualize a restraining order and prior dismissed criminal cases leading to the license suspension. Attorney Barabino and the chief spoke and Attorney Barabino made his case on why the law on suitability favored reinstatement. The chief ultimately decided in Client’s favor.
Result: LTC reinstated at low cost to client and without going to court

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 he moves forward without the 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 breath 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, 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, he 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, 2023
Carrying a Firearm w/o a License
Armed Career Criminal Level III
Possession of a Large Capacity 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 in 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 they were 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 in to 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 several visits to the jail to interview client as well as interviewing the family. We took that information and gathered 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, 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 store 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 was 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 of any wrongdoing, anywhere.
Result: Felony Charge(s) Do Not Issue.