Recent Cases

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.

March 27^th 2015
Malicious Destruction of Property
Breaking and Entering in the Nighttime for Felony
Larceny in Building
Client was a young, hard working juvenile who was polite, respectful, and an excellent student. According to police, he went into school late at night without permission and acted irresponsibility. This was an unacceptable act and inconsistent with his good tempered disposition and attitude. He was charged with felony offenses and the Commonwealth had a fairly strong case. Admitting to any of these types of offenses was unacceptable. Nevertheless, after several months of investigation and negotiation, Attorney Barabino today persuaded the prosecutor and the judge to place client on pre-trial probation for two months. As long as client refrains from committing any further offenses and pays back the money to the school for the damage, this case will be dismissed. No admission to any criminal act, misdemeanor, or felony.
RESULT: Sentencing Memorandum FILED, CASE DISMISSED.

March 18^th 2015
Larceny by Single Scheme
Credit Card False over 250
Identity Fraud
Client was a polite, bright young man who had a drug problem. According to police, he was involved in several schemes to defraud people. First, gaining access to their credit cards and eventually using those credit cards for exorbitant purchases. Police investigated and made an identification of his co-defendant. Attorney Barabino sought an evidentiary hearing, filing a motion with the court with a supporting legal memorandum outlining the reasons why the court should not permit the “I.D.” to be allowed, since it was suggestive. The court agreed. The motion to exclude the ‘I.D.” was allowed and little evidence remained in the case for the prosecution. After nearly a year of preparation, the case resulted in a dismissal.
RESULT: Motion to Suppress Identification, ALLOWED. CASE DISMISSED.

March 16^th 2015
Drug, Possession to Distribute Class B, Subsequent Offense
Drug, Possession to Distribute Class C, Subsequent Offense
Drug, Possession to Distribute Class B, Subsequent Offense
Conspiracy to Violate Drug Law
Drug Violation Near School/Park
Client was a hard working father and husband. According to police, he was a convicted drug dealer who was dealing drugs. According to a report filed by police, client met with another individual who was buying his drugs. An informant had been providing information to police, they said. Police saw client and ordered him to exit the motor vehicle. They asked him questions and lastly confiscated his phone, money and small amount of drugs. The charge required an indictment to Superior Court because it was not his first arrest for dealing. However, the case ultimately remained within District Court. Police initiated forensic investigation into his phone after receiving search warrant. Attorney Barabino would later seek to have that thrown out as evidence, but first he sought a hearing to reduce the school zone/park violation. He filed a Motion to Dismiss, and after a hearing, that motion was allowed. That meant client was no longer subject to the mandatory two-year prison sentence. That charge was consequently dismissed. Afterwards, another hearing was set and motions and legal memoranda filed to suppress or wipe out all the evidence. Attorney Barabino attempted to persuade the judge that the search was illegal. When the judge ruled that the search is indeed illegal, that evidence that was located was not permitted to be used. After the hearing another date was set to hear the judge's ruling. At that hearing, the judge filed a lengthy legal memorandum setting out the reasons why all the evidence would be suppressed. All charges would be dismissed.
RESULT: Motion to Dismiss School Zone/Park, ALLOWED, Motion to Suppress all the evidence, ALLOWED.

March 5^th 2015
Unarmed Robbery
Assault and Battery
Client was charged with Unarmed Robbery and Assault and Battery. According to police, a man called police and said three people just beat him up and robbed him. Unfortunately for defendant and two friends, they had been walking down the street from a party just a few blocks away. Initially, police found money in their pockets similar to what had been taken, blood on one person's shirt, and positive identification from the victim. However, soon it became clear that they were a victim themselves as a large party of similar looking people had just concluded. There was no blood and the money was simply their own. Nevertheless, the case proceeded through the court system. The police testified at a hearing that the young men were all friendly and respectful. Prior to trial, a challenge by Attorney Barabino and his two co-defendant lawyers petitioned to Suppress the Identification—as it was simply the wrong one---or a misidentification. Ultimately, that motion was partially allowed and the District Attorney elected to dismiss all charges. Case dismissed.
RESULT: Motion to Suppress, ALLOWED (In Part), Case DISMISSED.