Recent Cases

November 16, 2017
Assault and Battery
Strangulation or Suffocation
Client was a young man just out of high school when he was charged with grabbing his brother and putting him into a headlock. Police responded to the home, charged him with a felony, and the Commonwealth successfully imprisoned him until the day of his trial with no bail allowed. Attorney Barabino was successful in securing his release until the day of trial, despite the District Attorney arguing for a § 58A dangerousness hearing detention hold. After his release from custodial detention, the defense made normal preparations for trial. On the day of trial, Attorney Barabino and his client announced “Ready for Trial”, but with minutes to go before empanelment of the jury, the District Attorney announced that the complainant was refusing to cooperate and could not go forward. Attorney Barabino requested dismissal of the charges.
Result: CLIENT RELEASED PENDING TRIAL, CASE DISMISSED DAY OF TRIAL.

November 11, 2017
Sex Offender Registry Board/Superior Court Judicial Review
Client had been on the SORB Registry when he was accused of a second, separate sex crime. He denied the second accusation and was eventually acquitted. However, prior to his acquittal, he had a SORB hearing labeling him as a level III offender based on the charges. Attorney Barabino appealed the decision of the SORB. A timely Notice of Appeal was filed, with complaint and affidavits. Soon after transcripts of the initial hearing were obtained and memoranda of law exchanged between the parties. Eventually a hearing was held and soon after a written decision indicating that the original SORB decision was vacated and remanded to the board for a new classification hearing.
Result: Level III SORB Decision, VACATED, NEW HEARING.

October 16, 2017
Larceny over $250.00
Client was a young man who stole over five thousand ($5,000.00) dollars' worth of electronic goods from a chain store in the course of his employment there. The case against client was strong as the store had investigated the case for months and assembled a trove of electronic evidence. In addition, they secured an admission to the crime from client prior to him being formally charged. Negotiations continued for several months and parties involved reached an agreement: client would admit to the charge, he wouldn't pay any probation fees, would agree to take a theft program, and would pay back the money for the items that he stole. In the end, no conviction would appear on his record as long as he complies with the agreement.
Result: ADMISSION TO CHARGE WITH CONDITIONAL AGREEMENT FOR DISMISSAL

September 5, 2017
Abuse Prevention Order
Client, a hard-working father, had been in a romantic relationship with a woman years ago. When the relationship ended, she secured a restraining order which prohibited him from being within 100 yards of her at all times. According to her, while she was working at her place of employment, he went to the place of employment and stared at her in violation of the order. The defense agreed that he did briefly walk by her store where she was working, but that he did not know she worked there and he was as surprised as she was to discover her there. Although a strong case for the defense, the Commonwealth felt otherwise. The Commonwealth brought the case to trial and even obtained prior allegations against the defendant to show his “bad acts”. At trial, the judge ruled that the Commonwealth could not admit the prior bad acts, as a guilty verdict would surely mean deportation for the otherwise innocent defendant. However, after witness after witness testified, a not guilty verdict was returned.
Result: NOT GUILTY AFTER TRIAL

August 16, 2017
1^st OFFENSE OUI- Liquor or .08%
Client, a young college graduate, was driving and struck a parked car. He was eventually apprehended and charged with a first offense OUI. The defense made several challenges to admission of the Commonwealth's evidence via a motion to suppress. Although the court denied the motion, the court authored a well-written and detailed 9-page decision for their rationale and basis. The client agreed to a plea that would place him on probation for one year, with the agreement that the charge would be dismissed from his record at the end of that calendar year.
Result: First Offense OUI DISMISSED AFTER ONE YEAR PROBATION AND PROGRAM.

August 14, 2017
1^st OFFENSE OUI- Liquor or .08%
Client, a young professional, sought counsel for a first-time OUI offense: she was pulled over driving without lights, failed the field sobriety tests, and made incriminating statements. After discussing the option of a trial or a plea, she opted for a plea, in part, to accelerate her hardship license application. Agreement was hashed out and a "not responsible" on her civil infraction was entered at the first court appearance, with probation for the OUI charge. Client agreed to a plea that would place her on probation for one year, with the agreement that the charge will be dismissed from her record after one year.
Result: First Offense OUI DISMISSED AFTER ONE YEAR PROBATION AND PROGRAM, CIVIL VIOLATION NOT RESPONSIBLE.

August 11, 2017
Leave Scene of Property Damage
Client was a young man about to embark on his first year at college. However, in the interim break, before school started, he was in a car accident. After the accident, client fled the scene, and damaged two separate vehicles in his flight. Fortunately, his parents reached out to Attorney Barabino early, and he was able to coordinate a clerk magistrate hearing within the four-day period required by law. A hearing was held, with communication and documentation given to the parties involved beforehand.
Result: Complaint DOES NOT ISSUE, with agreement to provide insurance documentation within sixty (60) days to authorities.

August 2, 2017
Conspiracy
Attempt to Evade Tax
Client was in possession of a large amount of tobacco products from a southern state, without a license or stamp. The amount of tobacco was substantial. There were immigration consequences if the case was not successful. Several court dates led to the filing of a motion to suppress evidence. At that key hearing, the Commonwealth declared that they would not be able to secure a necessary witness and were then forced to dismiss the entire case.
Result: Motion to Suppress Evidence, FILED. Case DISMISSED PRIOR TO HEARING.