Recent Cases

November 16^th 2015
Firearm Carrying with Ammunition
Firearm Carrying without a license
The defendant was a passenger in his mother's car when it was pulled over by Massachusetts State Police. When State Police noticed he wasn’t wearing a seat belt, they wrote him a citation. When they wrote him a citation, they noticed he had active warrants. The police testified that when defendant provided his license to police, they noticed that he slid a small black pistol in between the seats. After the Defendant was arrested the police located and secured a small black revolver. After a motion to suppress, the case was set for trial. Ballistics experts, fingerprint experts, and various witnesses were called. The coordination was tedious, but all the pieces needed to be in place for the trial to begin. After five separate trial dates, the court dismissed the case, without prejudice. However, if the case is brought back to court, Attorney Barabino can move to dismiss the charges for failure to comply with time standards.
RESULT: DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE ON ALL CHARGES. Upon re-applying for charges in future, Motion to DISMISS to be considered by court

November 4^th 2015
Negligent Operation of Motor Vehicle
Marked Lanes Violation
License not in Possession
A young man had swerved off the road and struck a telephone pole. It was a single-car accident and police responded quickly and professionally. Client was transported to the hospital with injury. After two court dates and consultation with the District Attorney, a disposition was entered with the court. The result was an agreed upon dismissal in 90 days time. Also an entry of not-responsible was entered on Marked Lanes Violation as well -an otherwise additional small victory which prevented a surcharge and points against insurance.
RESULT: As long as Client remains arrest-free for ninety (90) days and enrolls in a half-day program called “Brains-at-Risk” this case to be DISMISSED. Client ADMITS TO NOTHING and still retains the PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE.

October 7^th 2015
Possession with Intent to Distribute Class “D”
Conspiracy
Client was a loving father, a dedicated employee, and a supportive partner. According to police, an “informant” provided information to police that he thought that drug dealing was occurring at his home. Police, being particularly detailed, commenced what are called “trash pulls”, which included a review of the contents of all their trash at multiple trash drops. A search warrant was executed. Police located a few ounces of marijuana, scales and baggies. The cases presented some complexities since there was an immigration detainer. So the goal was to move the case as fast as possible. However, despite immigration concerns, client and Attorney Barabino didn’t want to see him admit to a distribution charge, when the reality was that it was simply marijuana for personal use, albeit a larger amount than typical for the average smoker. In the end, immigration consequences left us no choice but trial and mid-day into the first day of trial, moments before the jury was to enter, an agreement to reduce the charge to simple possession ended the case.
RESULT: REDUCTION FROM DISTRIBUTION TO SIMPLE POSSESSION. Conspiracy DISMISSED.

October 5^th 2015
Possession of Heroin
According to police, client was acting suspiciously and coordinating a drug deal. After monitoring some observations, police stopped a vehicle he was traveling in. What occurred after the stop was, according to Attorney Barbaino, an illegal search and seizure. When an illegal search and seizure occurs, the next step is to make a formal challenge to the government. As can been seen and as is done in each case that this occurs, Attorney Barabino drafts and files a motion and memorandum of law detailing his claims. A date is set to bring in the officers to court to challenge the process of the arrest and drug discovery and the judge reviews the testimony. Occasionally, the judge will make his decision right after the hearing. In this case, the judge tendered a very well written, detailed finding. The result of his finding was that Attorney Barabino’s motion to suppress would be allowed. And since the drugs could not be used as evidence in the case, the result was that the matter would be dismissed. The Commonwealth had an administrative review of 30 days to decide whether to appeal. However, in this case, like most, the case would simply be dismissed on the day the defendant returns to court.
RESULT: Suppression Hearing, SUCCESSFUL, Motion to Dismiss, ALLOWED. Client returns to court for formal DISMISSAL OF THE CHARGE.

October 2^nd 2015
Trafficking in Oxycodone
Felon in Possession Firearm
Conspiracy
Armed Career Criminal (ACC)
According to Federal Agents, the defendant was participating in a drug distribution ring that had an international reach. Although, not a central player by any stretch, police felt strongly enough to set up controlled “buys” at the defendant’s home. The federal government utilized their many resources, which included wiretaps to record transactions inside the home. Fortunately, the federal government lost interest in the case as their “informant” was charged with drug dealing himself. The state took over the operation and their highly skilled prosecutorial team moved forward with the case. The case was as complex as any drug case could be. After a thorough review of the massive amount of data provided, Attorney Barabino filed a Motion to Dismiss the Armed Career Criminal or ‘ACC”, which is a sentencing enhancement. That well written motion was allowed by the judge and that particular indictment was dismissed. Once that indictment was dismissed, Attorney Barabino went to work on attempting to dismiss/reduce the remaining indictments, challenging the weight of the narcotics. In summary, he called in question the method that the Commonwealth uses to weight out and eventually charge people. He hired an expert and argued the motion with a lengthy and detailed memorandum of law. Although denied after a 6-month review by the judge, Attorney Barabino appealed it to a single justice of the Massachusetts Supreme Court, and eventually the full Bench of the Massachusetts Supreme Court. Disappointed that they did not take the case, he continued his advocacy. With the aide of another co-defendant lawyer, a loophole in the search warrant discovery process was determined and a partial motion to suppress was allowed. The result was after years of intense litigation, and an outstanding advocacy from the Commonwealth’s attorney as well, an admission of guilt was rendered with a penalty of a $50 fine. All remaining counts were dismissed. No Minimum Mandatory Sentence.
RESULT: Motion to Dismiss Armed Career Criminal, ALLOWED, Motion to Suppress, ALLOWED (In part), APPEAL to Massachusetts Supreme Court.

September 11^th 2015
OUI - Liquor or .08%
Client was a hard working hairstylist and single mother. According to police, she drank alcohol while under the influence. This case presented a variety of legal issues. Those included conflicting statements by the accused and a parking clerk that stated that she could barely stand. Police officers testified accurately that the accused performed her sobriety test in “less than ideal” conditions and had zero problems with at least one test. In the end, the jury could not reach a verdict. In any criminal trial, all the jurors must agree that the accused is “guilty” beyond a reasonable doubt of the crime charged or “not guilty”. Generally, an agreement is reached, one-way or the other. Sometimes that agreement takes longer than expected. In this case, the jury was deadlocked and simply could not agree. In the end, the parties agreed to a “Rodriguez” charge, which means that the judge is giving them one more opportunity to come to an agreement. Here, the instruction was given, but in the end, the jurors simply could not agree and the court ruled the matter a mistrial. During today's trial, the case was tried again and the witness/employee of the parking garage had an even different version of the events than before. On today's date, the jury had a quick and decisive decision with a brief deliberation and returned a verdict of not guilty.
RESULT: JURY FINDS DEFENDANT NOT GUILTY.

August 15^th 2015
Client wanted the best SORB attorney he could find. Client was a young man who was accused in a different state. The SORB preliminarily classified him as a LEVEL III offender—the highest risk to reoffend. As a juvenile, client was caught in a FBI sting and accused of possession and distribution of child pornography. Moreover, he had an unsubstantiated sex-related accusation and intermittent drug involvement (Note: drug and alcohol use is a disinhibitor and weighed accordingly in their formal decision making process). In the end, client's family hired Attorney Barabino. Attorney Barabino spend countless hours interviewing and preparing a witness. Attorney Barabino prepared and submitted nearly 21 pages of written motions detailing various legal issues to the Board. In the end, a full and fair evidentiary hearing was held. The petitioner was allowed, through his counsel and witnesses, to inform the board of lawful defenses. Client receives notice that no registration is required.
RESULT: Client’s LEVEL III Status, LOWERED FROM LEVEL III TO NO LEVEL. NO REGISTRATION NECESSARY.

August 10^th 2015
Assault and Battery
A retired, married client with no previous record was accused of assault and battery on his wife. There had been recent tension in the marriage and an argument became slightly physical with unpermitted touching. No injuries or marks. The touching was brief and modest. After several court dates and a full evaluation of the evidence collected, the Commonwealth agreed that there was no case if the wife asserted her marital privilege. On today's date, she asserted that right and the case was dismissed.
RESULT: Charge of Assault and Battery, DISMISSED