Recent Cases

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.

December 2^nd 2014
Possession to Distribute Class D
Client was a passenger driving in a motor vehicle with his friends. They were also under the eye of a special response unit or a specialized anti-drugs investigation unit. That unit converged on the vehicle and confiscated nearly 100 grams of marijuana, scales, ledgers for recording transactions, and over $1000 in cash. Attorney Barabino requested a challenge to the motor vehicle stop via a Motion to Suppress evidence. Once that motion, affidavits, and memorandum of law were filed, the police were brought into court for a hearing. The court issued a decision after a month’s wait indicating that the evidence should be thrown out. As a result, the case will be dismissed.
RESULT: Motion to Suppress All Evidence, ALLOWED. CASE DISMISSED.

October 21^st 2014
Permitting Unlicensed Operation of a Motor Vehicle
Client was a hard working kindergarten teacher who allowed her husband to drive her motor vehicle without a license. He has since obtained his permit, and upon providing verification of a full and authenticated license, will have this matter be closed. No complaint ever issues.
RESULT: APPLICATION FOR COMPLAINT DISMISSED, PRIOR to Any Arraignment.

October 17^th 2014
Assault with a Dangerous Weapon
Client was a hardworking cleaner with three children. She had a boyfriend who had a hard time letting go of their relationship and accused her of waving a knife at him. The police performed a thorough investigation, which was helpful to client. A Clerk's Hearing was ordered and at the hearing Clerk declined to issue the complaint. Although the hearing lasted fifteen minutes or less, Attorney Barabino and client had prepared nearly an entire day's worth of effort collecting documents and interviewing witnesses. In the end, the Complaint did not issue.
RESULT: NO CRIMINAL COMPLAINT ISSUED.