Recent Cases

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.

January 12^th 2016
Domestic Assault and Battery
Client was a hard working nurse, wife, and mother. According to witnesses, she drank a bit too much and slapped her husband several times. Department of Children and Family Services were called but declined to investigate further. At arraignment, Commonwealth sought random alcohol screens and Attorney Barabino argued they were not necessary as a condition of release. The court agreed with Attorney Barabino, and the case was dismissed at trial with a marital privilege exception.
RESULT: DISMISSAL

January 11^th 2016
Second Offense OUI- Liquor or .08%
Disorderly Conduct
Negligent Operation of a Motor Vehicle
Marked Lanes Violation
Client was stopped by police after hitting the fence of a police station. Police determined that the smell on his breath, unsteadiness and related factors were sufficient to arrest -assumption was correct. Client before had been drinking and was surprised to realize his level of intoxication was as high as it was. The biggest factor for client was accepting responsibility and getting a license back at the earliest possibility. Attorney Barabino and client were able to negotiate no jail time. Not responsible on Marked Lanes Violation. Negligent Operation Dismissed.
RESULT: Alternative No Jail Disposition, Marked Lanes, NOT RESPONSIBLE, Negligent Operation, DISMISSED.

December 10^th 2015
Negligent Operation of Motor Vehicle Chapter
Unlicensed Operation of a Motor Vehicle
Use Motor Vehicle Without Authority
Fail to Stop for Police
Super pleasant young man with great potential made a moment of bad judgment. According to police, in the early morning hours they noticed a vehicle made a civil infraction. They sought to pull the vehicle over but the driver refused. They followed the vehicle briefly. The vehicle was being driven negligently and after a brief pursuit came to a stop. Prior to arraignment, every effort was made to develop and demonstrate to the District Attorney the impressive background of the young man. In the end, an agreement was struck where he would not admit wrongdoing and the case would be dismissed in 90 days. This pre-trial probation term allows him to retain the presumption of innocence and a full dismissal of the charges.
RESULT: Case to be DISMISSED after 90 Days with NO ADMISSION OF WRONGDOING.

November 24^th 2015
Negligent Operation of Motor Vehicle
Operating Motor Vehicle with License Suspended
A smart, hard-working young computer engineer was charged with negligent operation of a motorcycle, speeding, and license suspension. According to police, she was traveling close to ninety miles an hour when she “goosed it” and tagged the back of a truck. Her pelvis, leg and shoulder were broken. After witnesses spoke to police, a determination that she was driving negligently was made and she was criminally cited. Also, because of her less than stellar driving record, a plea negotiation was agreed to where she would be required to take two driving courses and be on probation for a year with no attendance needed. Moreover, the plea allowed for her to take an “Alford Plea”, which means she didn’t admit she did anything wrong, important for her civil personal injury case. Also, no license loss as part of the agreement.
RESULT: ALFORD PLEA allows for rights preserved and NO ADMISSION OF WRONGDOING. NO LICENSE LOSS. CASE DISMISSED in a 12 months.

November 18^th 2015
Drug, Possession to Distribute Class D
Conspiracy
Client was a high school student and charged with Conspiracy to Distribute Marijuana and a separate charge of Possession with Intent to Distribute. After a previous dismissal, he found himself back at the same court for trial. With nearly a fourth a pound of marijuana, cash, and a scale, we were ready for trial. Moments before the trial began we agreed to a deal with the Commonwealth that would dismiss the Conspiracy charge, reduce the possession to distribute charge to simple possession, and dismiss the simple possession charge after a 21-day probation.
RESULT: CHARGE DISMISSED. SECOND CHARGE REDUCED AND DISMISSED AFTER PROBATION OF 21 DAYS. NO CONDITIONS.

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.