Recent Cases

May 7^th 2014
Negligent Operation of Motor Vehicle
Fireworks, Possession Unlawful
Client was bright college student and band member. He was charged with Negligent Operation of a Motor Vehicle and Possession of Fireworks. According to a state police report, he was parked on the left side of the highway-asleep in his vehicle. When police interviewed him, he had alcohol on his breath and his eyes were bloodshot. Yet unusually, the police only charged him for Negligent Operation of a Motor Vehicle and also for fireworks that were within the motor vehicle and are a criminal offense under Massachusetts's law. Attorney Barabino presented to a clerk magistrate the facts and background and the magistrate eliminated the fireworks charge. Once arraigned on the remaining charge, an agreement was made with the Commonwealth whereas some conditions would be met with administrative probation on the assurance that the matter would be dismissed upon all requirements.
RESULT: APPLICATION OF COMPLAINT FOR UNLAWFUL FIREWORKS POSSESSION, DISMISSED, Upon satisfaction of certain conditions, NO CONVICTION.

May 4^th 2014
Assault and Battery
A hard working father, employee, and candidate for the police academy was arrested for fighting with his brother. Police charged client with assault and battery. Mandatory disqualification of carrying a firearm if convicted, among many other consequences such as job termination, refusal to enter school property, and possibly jail time. During the case, the District Attorney sought to summon potentially damaging medical records into the court. Fortunately, after a complicated hearing attempt to obtain those records, the Commonwealth choose a compromise, which resulted in a trial date set and a dismissal on that trial date. As agreed, a dismissal entered on the trial date. Case Dismissed. Client can reapply for License to Carry Concealed Permit (LTC) card right away.
RESULT: Charge of Assault and Battery, DISMISSED. Client CAN reapply for License to Carry Concealed Permit (LTC) card, right away.

April 30^th 2014
2nd Offense OUI- Liquor or .08%
Negligent Operation of Motor Vehicle
Operating Motor Vehicle with Suspended License
According to police, client drove recklessly around state police who were assisting with road construction safety. According to police report, client weaved around the police and workers in such a way that it required them to jump out of the way of his vehicle. According to the state troopers' police narrative, the defendant’s eyes were bloodshot, his speech slurred, he failed the sobriety test, and he failed a Breathalyzer test. The client weighed his options with Attorney Barabino and in the end simply wanted to bring the matter to conclusion, to get a predictable result and obtain his license back as soon as possible. Following his client’s wishes, Attorney Barabino met with the District Attorney, who remained committed to recommending a suspended six-month jail sentence, a two-week inpatient detoxification program, and related programs. The judge listened intently and diligently to all sides and in the end agreed with Attorney Barabino for a 12 Month CWOF for the OUI Second Offense and to treat it as a First Offense instead. The judge gave the District Attorney what he sought on the Negligent Operation and License Suspension.
RESULT: OUI Second Offense Reduced to First Offense Deal, SECURED, Continued Without a Finding (CWOF) for a Period of One Year, with DISMISSAL After One Year.

April 24^th 2014
Negligent Operation of Motor Vehicle
Marked Lanes Violation
Client was in a one-person car accident. He was interviewed by state police and eventually arrested and charged with Negligent Operation of a Motor Vehicle and a Non-Criminal charge of Marked Lanes Violation. Since being charged, the defendant's motor vehicle insurance skyrocketed and he faced a mandatory future license loss, fines and fees, and shockingly, a potential two year sentence in a house of correction. After interviewing client and examining the scene and related materials, Attorney Barabino filed a Motion to Suppress the statements made by defendant at his hospital bed. Once the motion was filed, a hearing date was scheduled and all the parties, including police, were required to appear before a judge to hear evidence. Fortunately for the defendant, an experienced district attorney had reviewed the file and after speaking with the officer and reviewing all the facts, allowed a straight dismissal of the criminal charge and a "not responsible" for the civil charge of a Marked Lanes Violation.
RESULT: Motion to Suppress, FILED, Criminal Case DISMISSED. Civil Violation Declared, NOT RESPONSIBLE.

April 15^th 2014
Aggravated Rape of Child, By Force
Aggravated Rape of Child, By Force
Aggravated Rape of Child, By Force
Aggravated Rape of Child, By Force
Aggravated Rape of Child, By Force
Aggravated Rape of Child, By Force
Aggravated Rape of Child, By Force
Aggravated Rape of Child, By Force
Aggravated Rape of Child, By Force
Aggravated Rape of Child, By Force
Aggravated Rape of Child, By Force
Aggravated Rape of Child, By Force
Aggravated Rape of Child, By Force
Aggravated Rape of Child, By Force
Aggravated Rape of Child, By Force
Aggravated Rape of Child, By Force
Aggravated Rape of Child, By Force
Aggravated Rape of Child, By Force
Aggravated Rape of Child, By Force
Aggravated Rape of Child, By Force
Aggravated Rape of Child, By Force
Aggravated Rape of Child, By Force
Aggravated Rape of Child, By Force
Aggravated Rape of Child, By Force
Aggravated Rape of Child, By Force
Aggravated Rape of Child, By Force
Aggravated Rape of Child, By Force
Aggravated Rape of Child, By Force
Aggravated Rape of Child, By Force
Aggravated Rape of Child, By Force
Aggravated Rape of Child, By Force
Aggravated Rape of Child, By Force
Aggravated Rape of Child, By Force
Aggravated Rape of Child, By Force
Aggravated Rape of Child, By Force
Aggravated Rape of Child, By Force
Aggravated Rape of Child, By Force
Aggravated Rape of Child, By Force
Aggravated Rape of Child, By Force
Aggravated Rape of Child, By Force
Aggravated Rape of Child, By Force
Aggravated Rape of Child, By Force
Aggravated Rape of Child, By Force
Aggravated Rape of Child, By Force
Aggravated Rape of Child, By Force
Aggravated Rape of Child, By Force
Aggravated Rape of Child, By Force
Posing a Child in State of Sexual Conduct
Posing a Child in State of Sexual Conduct
Posing a Child in State of Sexual Conduct
Posing a Child in State of Sexual Conduct
Posing a Child in State of Sexual Conduct
Posing a Child in State of Sexual Conduct
Posing a Child in State of Sexual Conduct
Posing a Child in State of Sexual Conduct
Posing a Child in State of Sexual Conduct
Posing a Child in State of Sexual Conduct
Posing a Child in State of Sexual Conduct
Possession of Child Pornography
Possession of Child Pornography
Possession of Child Pornography
Possession of Child Pornography
Possession of Child Pornography
Possession of Child Pornography
Possession of Child Pornography
Possession of Child Pornography
Possession of Child Pornography
Possession of Child Pornography
Possession of Child Pornography
Possession of Child Pornography
Possession of Child Pornography
Aggravated Indecent Assault and Battery on a Child
Aggravated Indecent Assault and Battery on a Child
Aggravated Indecent Assault and Battery on a Child
Aggravated Indecent Assault and Battery on a Child
Aggravated Indecent Assault and Battery on a Child
Aggravated Indecent Assault and Battery on a Child
Aggravated Indecent Assault and Battery on a Child
Aggravated Indecent Assault and Battery on a Child
Aggravated Indecent Assault and Battery on a Child
Aggravated Indecent Assault and Battery on a Child
Aggravated Indecent Assault and Battery on a Child
Aggravated Indecent Assault and Battery on a Child
Aggravated Indecent Assault and Battery on a Child
Aggravated Indecent Assault and Battery on a Child
Aggravated Indecent Assault and Battery on a Child
Aggravated Indecent Assault and Battery on a Child
Aggravated Indecent Assault and Battery on a Child
Posing a Child in a State of Sexual Nudity
Posing a Child in a State of Sexual Nudity
Posing a Child in a State of Sexual Nudity
Posing a Child in a State of Sexual Nudity
Posing a Child in a State of Sexual Nudity
Posing a Child in a State of Sexual Nudity
Posing a Child in a State of Sexual Nudity
Posing a Child in a State of Sexual Nudity
Posing a Child in a State of Sexual Nudity
Posing a Child in a State of Sexual Nudity
Posing a Child in a State of Sexual Nudity
Posing a Child in a State of Sexual Nudity
Dissemination of Material Harmful to a Minor
Dissemination of Material Harmful to a Minor
Operating an Unlicensed Child Day Care Program
Client was a part-time community college professor and performed related small jobs. According to police, one of those small jobs was running an unlicensed childcare business with his wife. Client had also been a level one-sex offender for nearly twenty years for a prior sex offense in 1989. After an investigation into the business was conducted, it was determined that the client had videotaped himself involved in unspeakable acts against very minor children. According to a District Attorney's press conference, it was one of the worst cases of child sex abuse his office had ever handled. Client was taken into custody in 2012 and held on $1,000,000 bail. Attorney Barabino filed an extensive Motion to Dismiss a small portion of the charges, but that motion was denied after a hearing. After the Motion to Dismiss hearing, Attorney Barabino filed another motion: this time an extensive Motion to Supress evidence. Along with the lengthy motion, a legal memorandum filed, and experts retained, in the end the court ruled that the Commonwealth's execution of the search warrants was not only professional and competent—but also constitutionally permissible. As the trial neared, Attorney Barabino explored all venues for a deal or a “plea”. He made a proposal, which would have allowed the defendant to be physically castrated in exchange for a limit on a prison term of fifteen years—but that too was denied, but without prejudice. It was a deal that the District Attorney would have to agree to since the minimum sentence for one charge was twenty years (client was a fifty-year-old man). The castration would have been the first in Commonwealth for a criminal defendant. Finally, Attorney Barabino hired the renowned Psychiatrist Keith Ablow to evaluate the defendant for the purposes of criminal responsibility. With the trial date closing in, the defendant committed suicide. As a result, as is the custom and practice when a charged defendant dies prior to trial, the case was dismissed.
RESULT: Client Deceased Prior to Trial, Case DISMISSED.

April 13^th 2014
Salem District Court
Leaving the Scene of Personal Injury
Leaving the Scene of Personal Injury
Leaving the Scene of Personal Injury
Client was a diligent university student who needed representation. According to police, he Left the Scene of Personal Injury for two damaged vehicles and a broken fence. With an expectation of a law enforcement career, a decision by the clerk magistrate and police to issue the complaint would have been very hurtful for client's prospects. A full and truthful hearing was held and all the facts were listened too. The police, the court, and all involved were fair and judicial. Taking everything into consideration and after a hearing, they did not issue the complaint.
RESULT: Application for Complaint DISMISSED, PRIOR to Arraignment.

April 10^th 2014
Assault and Battery on a Police Office
Disorderly Conduct
Client was a hard working sales professional that was charged with Assaulting and Battering a Police Officer and Disorderly Conduct. According to the MBTA Police, Client mouthed off at them using profanities and thrusted his shoulder into an officer, throwing him back several steps. Once able to recover, the officer attempted to grab a hold of the defendant's arm, to which a brief struggle ensued. Profanities continued and the defendant was charged with the above crimes. After five separate trial dates, the defendant was finally placed on trial before a jury. The jury came to the conclusion that the defendant did not try to cause a disturbance and he did not assault and batter the police officer.
RESULT: ALL CHARGES NOT- GUILTY.

February 12^th 2014
Marked Lanes Violation
Operating Motor Vehicle with Suspended License
Client was a hard working computer engineer who was stopped for a Marked Lanes Violation. When he was stopped for a marked lanes violation, the officer informed him that his license was suspended---a criminal offense. Attorney Barabino negotiated with the very reasonable and experienced Middlesex prosecutors, who after reviewing all the facts and the client's otherwise outstanding background, agreed to dismiss the charge of license suspension, with court cost, and find him not responsible for the civil infraction.
RESULT: Charge DISMISSED on Court Cost, Civil Infraction, NOT RESPONSIBLE.