Recent Cases

September 26th 2014
Drug, Possession Class B (Cocaine)
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. However, in the end, Attorney Barabino and his client were confident that they could prove an illegal search and seizure. That confidence was actualized when an agreement was reached without even having a hearing, whereby the Conspiracy charge would be dismissed outright and the possession would also be dismissed upon payment of a $150 penalty.
RESULT: Class “A” Drug Possession and Conspiracy, DISMISSED.

September 25^th 2014
Larceny over $250.00
Larceny over $250.00
Larceny over $250.00
Shoplifting
Larceny under $250.00
Larceny under $250.00
Client was pursuing his Masters in Business Administration (MBA) out of state. Prior to him enrolling in his program, he had been employed at Nordstrom’s department store. While employed at the store, he became involved with several others in taking items from the store that didn’t belong to them. The arrangement was complex, so the investigation was consequentially extensive and detailed. The charges were, in part, felonies, which was simply unacceptable for someone who intended to have a future as a professional. The District Attorney sought guilty convictions. Attorney Barabino brought the matter before a judge and the judge agreed with Attorney Barabino. Client convictions would be dismissed if defendant were to pay back the $4800.00 within eighteen months. Also, the court allowed defendant's probation to be administrative so he would not have to physically appear in the courthouse and could leave to attend his out of state MBA program.
RESULT: NO FELONY CONVICTION, Upon Completion of Probation, ADMINISTRATIVE PROBATION ALLOWED.

September 2^nd 2014
OUI -Drugs
Client was a hard working, long-time truck driver with four children. When he was in a minor fender bender, the police thought he looked like “he could be under the influence”. He admitted to taking a sleeping pill of an unknown origin the night before, and was still sleepy. The police asked him to perform Field Sobriety Test (FST), which they said he failed. The police normally obtain at this point a Drug Recognition Expert or ‘DRE”, but they did not in this case. After examining the 911 tape, the accident scene, and witness statements, Attorney Barabino knew that the Commonwealth would be unsuccessful in proving its case. Attorney Barabino and client brought the case to trial, to which the Commonwealth stated it was not ready. Attorney Baraboo requested that the charge be dropped or “dismissed”, to which the judge agreed. Charge dismissed.
RESULT: CASE DISMISSED.

August 19^th 2014
OUI - Liquor or .08%
Client was a hard working supermarket manager. After having a few drinks after work one day, he was returned home to discover a DWI/Roadblock. The State Police noticed that he had glassy red eyes, admitted to consuming two drinks, slurred his speech, and was very unsteady on his feet. After an unsuccessful performance on his field sobriety test, he was arrested. Client took the stand in his own defense. A clear timeline and understanding of his natural inability to perform the test was presented, and an attentive jury returned a verdict of not guilty. Motion to reinstate client’s license, allowed.
RESULT: Jury returns verdict of NOT GUILTY, Motion to reinstate license, ALLOWED.

August 11^th 2014
License Suspended, Operating Motor Vehicle
Client had been charged with operating with a suspended license for OUI. The distinction between License Suspended for OUI and Licensed Suspended is significant. Driving with a suspended license for OUI has mandatory jail term of at least 60 days. Attorney Barabino made the distinction in the law clear to the judge. Although the judge did not send client to jail, he declined to enter proper verdict. The proper verdict was not guilty. After providing client with appellate counsel, the case was brought back to the court and his record amended to the lesser-included offense. In the end, defendant not guilty of the original charge.
RESULT: NOT GUILTY of the original charge, Docket Amended, NO JAIL TIME.

August 7^th 2014
Indecent Assault and Battery Child Under 14
Assault and Battery
Assault and Battery
Client was charged with kissing an eleven year old on the lips and assaulting and beating her as well as assaulting and beating his pregnant girlfriend. As the case was moving though the court system, he was once again charged for assaulting and beating his girlfriend. Via a Martins Hearing, those secondary charges were dropped, leaving the remaining sex related charge and the remaining assault and battery to argue. The girlfriend had been adamant that nothing physical occurred when she was interviewed by police and kept that position right up to the day of trial. At the day of trial, the young woman who was the complainant of the sex charge did not appear for court and the girlfriend who was now the defendant’s wife asserted her marital privilege, leaving the cases dismissed. The sex charge would be a required sex offender registration with the sex offender registry, but since it was dismissed, that will never occur. All charges dismissed.
RESULT: ALL CHARGES DROPPED. CASES DISMISSED. NO SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION.

July 24^th 2014
Leave Scene of Property Damage
Leave Scene of Property Damage
OUI - Liquor or .08%
Client was a hard working, truck-driving grandfather. According to police, he smashed into another motor vehicle and a road sign at a parking lot and left without informing anyone. The police investigated and interviewed the defendant at his home. When they interviewed the defendant, he had slurred speech, smelt of alcohol and had a hard time standing up. Attorney Barabino filed a motion to suppress statements made by the defendant, but the judge at an earlier date did not allow the motion. After viewing the scene and interviewing the witnesses, who gave a much different account than the police, a trial was requested. At trial, a judge declared that the Defendant is not guilty. A prior agreement for leaving the scene was generally continued for six months with no admission of any wrongdoing. Client had been an immediate threat and unable to drive since the beginning of the case, but could immediately seek reinstatement from the Registry of Motor Vehicles.
RESULT: NOT GUILTY OF OUI/DWI.

July 17^th 2014
Operating Motor Vehicle with Suspended License
Client was a hard working, perfect SAT-scoring engineer, who was simply accruing too many moving violations, which confusingly triggered multiple license suspensions. After clearing up one of the violations in a different court, the above complaint issued, but fortunately he applied for and received a clerk magistrates hearing. The clerk magistrate was diligent, fair, and respectful. He stated that if three months were to elapse without any further offenses, client should expect no complaint to issue. Client appeared with Attorney Barabino and the case was in fact dissed, prior to arraignment, and the paperwork shredded by the court.
RESULT: Application for Complaint DISMISSED, PRIOR to Arraignment.