Recent Cases

November 4, 2019
Reckless Operation of a Motor Vehicle
Client was a hard-working young man with no criminal record. He was charged by State Police for Reckless operation of a motor vehicle. According to the police report, client and accuser were involved in a road-rage-like incident. Beginning with words, then actions and eventually vehicle damage. State Police astutely charged not just our client, but the other party as well. This allowed for both parties to assert their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination not to testify. And when a seasoned prosecutor reviewed the facts at the day of trial, and based, in part, on the two parties having Fifth Amendment assertions, he agreed to dismiss the charges.
Result: Case, DISMISSED at TRIAL

October 31, 2019
1^st Offense OUI- Liquor or .08%
Negligent Operation of a Motor Vehicle
Speeding
Marked Lanes Violation
Client was a hard-working established business owner. He drank more than expected while at the Encore Casino. He was pulled over. He was charged with OUI and related offenses. The government had a strong case. Client simply wanted to fix his problem as soon as possible with minimal intrusion in his life and daily routine. He reached out to Attorney Barabino. Attorney Barabino made an appointment with client. Attorney Barabino got his police report from court prior to initial meeting. They decided a plea was the way to go. After an agreement was made to make a deal, Attorney Barabino went into the court the next business day with a motion to change the court date and negotiate the case. He changed the date so client would not have to suffer an additional period of license loss. Moreover, when Attorney Barabino negotiated the case he was able to get all the other charges dismissed. And a plea for the OUI, which was the most lenient under the law.
Result: 1^st OFFENSE OUI, Motion to Continue Allowed, OUI Continued Without a Finding, All Other Charges, DISMISSED and NOT RESPONSIBLE.

October 23, 2019
SECOND OFFENSE OUI- Liquor or .08%
Unlicensed Operation of a Motor Vehicle
Client was a hard-working musician who was charged with OUI, for the 2^nd time. Moreover, he was charged within ten years of his prior offense which makes him ineligible for an otherwise very favorable disposition. According to police, he negligently drove into a parked car. And what made this case unique was the police observed him firsthand, whereas normally, they respond to the scene of the accident, on this occasion they witnessed it. Client was polite and agreed to take a sobriety test, which he failed. He also agreed to a breathalyzer test which he failed. He simply wanted a deal to resolve everything and simply wanted to take responsibility. The District Attorney took everything into consideration, including his background and lack of serious criminal history and agreed to have him not go to jail, nor have any conditions of probation such as a SCRAM device or random drug screens. The result was a negotiated minimum of a sixty-day house of correction sentence, suspended for a two-year period. Client will also be required to attend a mandatory two-week inpatient program, with aftercare.
Result: 2nd OFFENSE OUI, Standard 2^nd Offense Statutory Disposition, Unlicensed Operation NOT RESPONSIBLE.

October 22, 2019
Malicious Destruction of Property
Malicious Destruction of Property
Client was a young teenage woman who had been charged with two counts of Malicious Destruction of Property. According to police this had been a pattern of harassment. The young woman was charged along with several other individuals. Eventually, a motion to dismiss was filed and unsuccessful and a motion to sever the parties’ cases was filed and unsuccessful. Eventually, a trial was set. At trial, the Commonwealth presented an outstanding sequence of the evidence. The Commonwealth artfully tied in all the circumstantial evidence and wove it with many credible witnesses. However, in the end, a judgment of Not Guilty for both charges was the result.
Result: Both Charges, NOT GUILTY after JURY TRIAL

October 11, 2019
Failure to Stop for Police
A hard-working IT professional was charged with failing to stop for police. The process of resolving the case was lengthy—but the result was right. After a clerk-magistrate hearing was properly filed, a hearing date was set down. Prior to the hearing, all the investigation and preparation were done, including viewing the scene and taking photographs. When the date arrived, the police needed a continuance for personal reasons. A new date was set but the court placed the date down for an arraignment in error, since it should have simply been a new magistrate hearing. Attorney Barabino filed a motion to dismiss to ensure that a magistrate hearing was now scheduled. However, after a brief consultation with the District Attorney an agreement was made to simply dismiss the case, prior to arraignment. The key here is prior to arraignment. Since the charge was dismissed, PRIOR to arraignment it will never appear on his record.
Result: The Charge, DISMISSED, Pre-Arraignment.

October 7, 2019
Uninsured Motor Vehicle
Unregistered Motor Vehicle
Highway Civil Citation
A hard-working IT professional was charged with driving without insurance or registration, and with a civil violation. An oversight in his banking led to a non-payment of insurance, which led to an automatic suspension of his registration. Moreover, an oversight in paying for the ticket led to a warrant for his arrest. Fortunately, client and Attorney Barabino reviewed his case and prepared for an immediate turn-in to the police station the next day. We consulted with the District Attorney and provided them the materials we had, indicating that the issue was an oversight and the client is an otherwise upstanding person with no criminal history. After consultation, they agreed to dismiss all the charges, including the civil charge, prior to arraignment. Since the charge was dismissed, PRIOR to arraignment it will never appear on his record.
Result: All Charges, DISMISSED, Pre-Arraignment.

October 7, 2019
Motion for New Trial
A hard-working long-time public employee was notified that he had a record and that record was problematic. Attorney Barabino and client reviewed the matter. After collecting documentation from decades earlier and reviewing it, it appeared he pleaded delinquent to a felony charge. After additional review, legal research and interviewing witnesses, Attorney Barabino began to assemble the probable defenses which the young man, as a youth, simply did not raise. As a result, various affidavits were assembled along with a motion for a new trial that justice had not been done. That material was complemented by an extensive memorandum of law which laid out all the facts. On the day of the hearing, the Commonwealth assented that there were enough defects in the decades-old case that a new trial was warranted. And upon that declaration, they agreed to dismiss the charges.
Result: Motion for New Trial, ALLOWED, Case DISMISSED.

September 23, 2019
Civil Rights Violation(s)
Assault & Battery
Disorderly Conduct
An out-of-work beautician was charged with assault and battery, disorderly conduct and civil rights violations. According to police, he yelled insulting remarks to an innocent Asian woman, then grabbed her and pulled her arm. He was also disorderly. He was tackled to the ground by bystanders. The Commonwealth moved for a dangerousness hearing under the “58A” dangerousness statute. As a result, client was held in state custody since the event occurred in summer of 2018. Attorney Barabino had his client evaluated by a private forensic psychiatrist who opined that the defendant was not criminally responsible. That in combination with the Commonwealth’s doctor’s testimony led to a verdict of NOT GUILTY by reason of mental defect or disease. Client DISCHARGED.
Result: NOT GUILTY by reason of insanity.