Recent Cases

June 20^th 2016
Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon
Assault and Battery
Client was accused of fighting an adult and using a knife. Client claimed he defended himself and never possessed the knife. Opposing party called police first, so client targeted by police, using all recourses they had available. Those resources included detailed video interrogations, DNA analysis, fingerprint analysis, as well as out-of-court identification processes. After challenging the detailed and professional job of the prosecutor for nearly a year on various points, a motion to suppress the out of court identification was filed and a hearing date was set. At the hearing, the District Attorney agreed that the motion should be allowed and that it was dispositive to the case. Case Dismissed.
RESULT: ALL CHARGES DROPPED, MOTION TO SUPPRESS.

June 9th 2016
Assault and Battery
Client was a hard working mechanic who was accused by his ex-girlfriend of assaulting and battering her. It was an unfounded accusation. There had been a verbal argument and the uninjured girlfriend made various statements to police. The stories she told police were inconsistent and damaged her already questionable credibility. A trial date was set. The accuser failed to appear so the court had little option but to allow Attorney Barabino’s Motion to Dismiss.
RESULT: Charge of Assault and Battery, DISMISSED.

June 8^th 2016
Negligent Operation of Motor Vehicle
A retired teacher was accused of negligently operating a motor vehicle. There were four separate witnesses, including a police officer that witnessed the motor vehicle crash. The witnesses were not helpful to the defendant. A plea was made before the judge asking for ninety-days probation. The District Attorney sought slightly more probation time. In the end, the judge sided with Attorney Barabino and allowed the defendant’s case to be dismissed, as long as she stays out of trouble, for a ninety-day period—otherwise called a continued without a finding or (CWOF).
RESULT: Case to be DISMISSED AFTER 90 DAYS, with NO CONVICTION ON RECORD. Enroll in two safety driver courses.

June 1st 2016
1st OFFENSE OUI- Liquor or .08%
Marked Lanes Violation
Client was a young man who was having substantial substance abuse issues. He was in a motor vehicle accident and was clearly intoxicated. As client resided out of state, Attorney Barabino arranged for probation to be transferred and negotiated with the district attorney to resolve the matter on the same day as arraignment. No restitution needed to be paid. Not responsible on the civil citation determined. At the plea hearing, the judge sided with Attorney Barabino and granted the defendant a Continuance Without a Finding (CWOF), allowing the case to be dismissed. No drug or alcohol screens. All in same day.
RESULT: Same day PLEA, out of state OUI-alcohol, open container, NOT RESPONSIBLE

May 10^th 2016
Conspiracy to Violate Drug Law
Intimidation of a Witness
According to jail security, client, who was an inmate, was involved in a scheme to have drugs brought into the jail. He was a target because he had been involved in drug dealing before. The case was developed with great detail by the investigators. They assembled recordings of phone calls, collected physical evidence, and found a participating co-conspirator to admit to the scheme. Then yet another co-conspirator admitted to the scheme. The drugs were sent to a laboratory for testing and were positive and the case was almost ready for trial. As the case proceeded, one of the four co-conspirators plead out to a sentence; then a second co-conspirator admitted his guilt and then another plead guilty. Only Attorney Barabino’s client remained, who had no such intention to plead guilty. Although he had been involved with drugs in the past—he was not guilty and was not going to admit to being so. Soon, after a separate motion to suppress the identification was held to preserve his rights moving forward, a trial date was set. The day of trial came and the required co-conspirator to prove the crime did not appear and the case was dismissed in full.
RESULT: All Charges DROPPED/DISMISSED

April 7^th 2016
Assault and Battery
Client was a hard working painter and father to two beautiful children. He also was a long time spouse to equally pleasant woman. When he suspected she was texting a male friend, he took a glass of milk and drenched her in it. He lost his cool and he readily admitted it. There was no marriage waiver to enlist and there was no Fifth Amendment to invoke, so she was summoned to trial. At trial, the defendant's partner was interviewed by the victim witness advocate and the District Attorney. She was adamant that she was not going to participate with this prosecution. The prosecution simply agreed to dismiss the charge in its entirety, moments before the day of trial.
RESULT: Assault and Battery, DISMISSED

March 31^st 2016
Assault and Battery
Client was a young man who had an emotional outburst. Being hard to manage, his mother called the police to give him aid. When police arrived, they witnessed an assault and battery. This was not the first time the police had been to the home. Charges were filed and a clerk magistrate hearing was held to determine if there was: 1) probable cause for the charges to be officially filed; and 2) if probable cause existed could this case be deferred or resolved without criminal charges. Probable cause was found, but based on the complexity of all the issues, age of the child, and background, it was determined that charges would not go forward and none would issue.
RESULT: CHARGES NOT ISSUED.

January 13^th 2016
Second Offense OUI- Liquor or .08%
Marked Lanes Violation
Open Container
Client was a hard working human resources professional. According to police, she demonstrated concerning driving. She was pulled over by police. They stated she smelt like booze, had slurred speech, glassy eyes and problems performing field sobriety test. She took a portable breath test and scored three times the legal limit. After substantial consult and attempts to appeal her breath test refusal, a plea was sought. At the earliest date possible, client received non-jail alternative disposition.
RESULT: NON-JAIL ALTERNATIVE DISPOSITION. OPEN CONTAINER NOT RESPONSIBLE.