Recent Cases

Possession of Heroin, SUPPRESSION HEARING SUCCESSFUL, MOTION TO DISMISS ALLOWED, CHARGE FORMALLY DISMISSED

October 5th 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.

Armed Career Criminal, MOTION TO DISMISS ALLOWED, MOTION TO SUPPRESS PARTIALLY ALLOWED, APPEALED

October 2nd 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.

OUI-Liquor, JURY FINDS DEFENDANT NOT GUILTY

September 11th 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.

Sex Offense, SORB LEVEL LOWERED FROM LEVEL III TO NO LEVEL, NO REGISTRATION NECESSARY

August 15th 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.

Assault and Battery, DISMISSED

August 10th 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

Shoplifting, PAYMENT OF RESTITUTION IN FULL, NO COMPLAINT ISSUED AGAINST CLIENT, CLEAN RECORD

July 27th 2015
Shoplifting By Asportation By Recording False Value
Shoplifting By Asportation over 100
Client was a young adult and senior with unlimited potential. According to police, he made a massive reduction in the cost of items via a friend who was working as a cashier. The police, professional and respectful, allowed this matter to heard at a clerk magistrate's hearing. Attorney Barabino prepared details and background of client and reached out to people involved. At the hearing, all parties were heard and the opportunity to pay back the money was sufficient to have no complaint issue. Record of names remains fully intact. Clean records remains.
RESULT: PAYMENT OF RESTITUTION IN FULL, NO COMPLAINT ISSUED AGAINST CLIENT, CLEAN RECORD Remains Fully Intact.

Motion to Seal, ALLOWED

July 16th 2015
Motion to Seal Record
Client was an all-around, pleasant hardworking professional who had been charged with and admitted to several low level misdemeanors. The events were nearly 25 years old but client wanted his record sealed. Today, Attorney Barabino sought to have a petition to seal heard by the same court that indicted him. Attorney Barabino persuaded the judge to seal all records of this case. As a matter of law, client may now truthfully answer on any job application that he has never been arrested for, or charged with, any crime.
RESULT: PETITION TO SEAL ALLOWED

Drug Possession Charges DISMISSED

July 5th 2015
Drug, Possession to Distribute Class B
Drug, Possession to Distribute Class B
Drug, Possession to Distribute Class B
Drug, Possession to Distribute Class C
Drug, Possession to Distribute Class E
Drug, Possession to Distribute Class C
Client was a young engineer involved with drugs. While under the influence, a young lady friend came over his home. She stayed at his home as a guest and tragically she passed away during the night as a result of a drug overdose. The defendant found her unresponsive and called police without hesitation. His attempts at first aid were valiant but unsuccessful. When police arrived to the home in response to the 911 calls they noticed various drugs in plain view. Those drugs included Morphine, Methadone, Suboxone, Klonopin, Gabapentin and Clonidine. There was enough in the view of police of each drug to charge distribution of the drugs. The police demonstrated a high level of expertise, professionalism, and sophistication. Their expertise was clear as they quickly noticed the necessity of applying for a search warrant for the drugs and conducting interviews and interrogations with proper rights administrated. In the end, the case moved through the court for nearly two years. As the case was close to trial, the District Attorney reduced the Class “A” charge to simple possession. That developed an opening to file a motion to dismiss not only that charge but also the remaining charges under the more recent law protecting people against being charged for possession of drugs when they call for help for people experiencing an overdose. The motion was filed. A hearing date was set. District Attorney stated his anticipated intend of dismissing the charges. On the day of the hearing, the case is dismissed in its entirety.
RESULT: Motion to Dismiss, FILED, CASES DISMISSED.

Failure to Register, CONDITIONAL DISMISSAL

June 24th 2015
Failure to Register as a Sex Offender
Client made several mistakes nearly ten years prior. Those mistakes led him to be listed as a sex offender, with all the requirements of registration. He had several children and was a law abiding person working many hours to maintain stability for his family. According to police, he made mistakes on his registration and was charged with failure to register as a sex offender. The investigation into defendant was very sophisticated and intensive. The police tracked the defendant to locations outside of his hometown and took photographs. Police applied for an received a search warrant for a GPS tracking device for his motor vehicle. Police also installed a hidden motion detector on a telephone pole at a fixed location, among conducting other investigative techniques. They also secured an videotaped admission from the defendant. After an exhaustive review of the thousands of pieces of evidence, Attorney Barabino filed a motion to suppress, with a lengthy memorandum of law. On that day, prior to the hearing, the judge, who would also allow defendant to admit to the allegation, took an agreed tender that if defendant stays out of legal trouble for about a year and one half, the charge would be dismissed. This disposition is called a Continued Without a Finding or “CWOF”. The probation is administrative, so client does not have to appear at the probation department.
RESULT: Motion to Dismiss, FILED, PLEA Entered and if Abides by Probation Terms Case will be DISMISSED.

Assault and Battery Charges, Strangulation, ALL CHARGES DISMISSED, PROBATION REINSTATED WITH NO IMPOSITION OF TWO YEAR SUSPENDED SENTENCE

May 21th 2015
Assault and Battery Chapter
Assault and Battery Chapter
Assault and Battery with Dangerous Weapon
Strangulation or Suffocation
Assault and Battery with Dangerous Weapon
Assault and Battery with Dangerous Weapon
Client had been on probation when he was charged with the above offenses. The Commonwealth sought to invoke a No Bail “58A” detention prior to trial. The probation department also sought a detainer to hold him without bail. He wasn’t going anywhere, and on Attorney Barabino's advice, he advised client not to challenge the hold prior to any trial. The reason not to challenge it was because he would not be successful and it could preserve testimonial evidence against him at trial. That advice proved essential since at trial the Commonwealth was unable to prove their case with the evidence they had. The District Attorney sought a second trial date to obtain prison phone calls. Once that proved unsuccessful, at another trial date, a dismissal of all charges was obtained. The court declined to invoke the suspended sentence on the probation matter. Client was given a very short jail term and will be released within 4-6 weeks, with no convictions.
RESULT: ALL CHARGES DISMISSED. Probation Reinstated with NO IMPOSITION OF TWO-YEAR SUSPENDED SENTENCE.