Recent Cases

July 5^th 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.

June 24^th 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.

May 21^th 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.

May 19^th 2015
Drug, Possession Class A, Subsequent Offense
According to police, they arrived at a local McDonald's bathroom to find the accused under the influence of a drug and with brown bags of powder and a needle. According to police, he admitted that he had taken heroin. The Commonwealth made an attempt to obtain medical records to support the charge, but after a hearing, that was denied. Also, the commonwealth was unable to obtain a drug certification certificate from the state crime lab. As a result, at the day of trial, they simply withdrew the prosecution. The court and its staff along with the District Attorney were professional, competent, and classy. In the end, the case was withdrawn from prosecution. In essence, Dismissed.
RESULT: Class “A” Possession, SUBSEQUENT OFFENSE, DISMISSED.

May 7^th 2015
Possession of Class “A” Heroin
Possession of Class “E” Gabapentin
Possession of Class “B” Suboxone
License Suspended, Operating Motor Vehicle
Disguise to Obstruct Justice
Client was hard working contractor who was a target of a drug task force. The task force pulled him over with no license, and client giving a fake name and information resulted in arrest. In addition, task force had warrants. Upon searching the motor vehicle it found various drugs of different categories. He was charged with illegally possessing those as well. Also, client had recently been released after doing a committed jail sentence for various crimes. Fortunately, Attorney Barabino and client reviewed the case and Attorney Barabino found an imperfection with the arrest process---an imperfection that could lead to a judge determining that the arrest was illegal and that the evidence should be thrown out. After Attorney Barabino provided the court with a detailed legal memorandum, a hearing was set. Attorney Barabino and an experienced, seasoned DA, reviewed the progress client had been making and the probability that defense could be successful. Since drug screens would not be compatible with his job, both parties agreed on a two-year Continued Without a Finding (CWOF), which meant that the case would be dismissed after two years. No drug screens or attendance with probation would be necessary.
RESULT: Motion to Suppress, FILED, Probation with NO CONVICTIONS if continues crime free for two years. NO DRUG SCREENS OR PROBATION CONDITIONS REQUIRED.

May 4^th 2015
Drug, Possession Class D (Weed), Distribute
Conspiracy to Violate Drug Law
According to police, while on patrol in a high-crime area, they noticed what they believed to be a drug transaction. They produced a lengthy police report, which detailed their observations. The officers based their actions on a hunch and that hunch proved to be correct. An attempt to dismiss the case suppressing evidence as an illegal search was surprisingly unsuccessful. However, Attorney Barabino and client moved on. After viewing the scene with client, reviewing the evidence in the possession of the government, and preparing witnesses, a trial date was set. The government had an admission of wrongdoing from the defendant, a quarter pound of weed (individually bagged and others empty bags), a scale, and a little more than two hundred dollars as evidence. Despite appearing ready at the first trial date, the Commonwealth was not ready. As a sanction, the judge said at the next date they must appear ready. On the second date, they were unable to answer ready and the judge agreed to dismiss the case.
RESULT: Class “D” Intent to Distribute, DISMISSED, Conspiracy DISMISSED.

April 14^th 2015
Assault and Battery
Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon
Client was pleasant and easy-going young father from a supportive and close family. Client was charged with assaulting and battering his girlfriend, two separate counts. According to police, they had come to the couple's home two separate times during one night. The police had suspicions about domestic violence, but no arrests were made. However, police were called a third time after the couple were now in their car arguing on the side of a road nearby. The female had bloodied, swollen eyes, and scratches, and the client had blood on his many rings on his fingers. The police arrested client, and a full evidentiary hearing was held for a dangerous hearing or 58A hearing. At that hearing, the judge heard from many witnesses, including client's sister from Florida. After a hearing, the judge declared that the client should be released pending trial and should not be held without bail. At trial, the commonwealth was unable to move forward with the evidence they had and the court allowed a dismissal of all charges.
RESULT: Dangerous Hearing (58A) SUCCESSFUL, Client Released Pending Trial, CASE DISMISSED.

April 8^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. Included were conflicting statements by accused, a parking clerk that stated she could barely stand, and finally police officers that 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” or “not guilty” beyond a reasonable doubt of the crime charged. 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 would give them one more time 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.
RESULT: Rodriguez “Blow Out” Charge, HUNG JURY, RETRIAL TO BE DETERMINED.