Recent Cases

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.

January 23^rd 2014
Possession of Class B, Subsequent Offense
Client had previously admitted guilt to a charge of possession of cocaine, subsequent offense. Attorney Barabino sought to reopen his case since the drugs had been tested by the drug lab manipulator “Annie Dookham”. Attorney Barabino brought a motion to reopen the case or a Motion for a New Trial. That motion was allowed despite being vehemently opposed by the District Attorney. The District Attorney refused to dismiss the charges even though client had served a majority of the jail time that is permitted for the charge. As a result, Attorney Barabino sought to dismiss the evidence, since he alleged that it was obtained in violation of his constitutional rights—which ultimately would have forced the case to be dismissed. The court, in its eventual ruling, sided with the defendant. In this case, the Commonwealth sought additional time to consult with their appellate division, but the result remained clear, and despite the additional time, the case would be dismissed.
RESULT: Motion for a New Trial, ALLOWED, Motion to SUPPRESS, ALLOWED, Case DISMISSED.

January 21^st 2014
Abuse Prevention Order
Client was a hard working woman with no criminal record. According to police, her ex-lover said she violated a recent restraining order that was in place. Police could have mailed her a letter ordering her to court—but choose to arrest her instead while in her workplace. Humiliated about the workplace arrest and concerned about a possible criminal record, she and Attorney Barabino filed several motions to help her case, including a Motion to Dismiss. That motion had a legal memorandum outlining the reasons and justification for the court to order dismissal. The court arranged for a hearing date, and today, after a hearing had been previously held nearly two months ago, the court entered a formal dismissal in her favor, outlining the reasons for the motion to be allowed. Case dismissed.
RESULT: Motion to Dismiss, FILED, ALLOWED, CASE DISMISSED.

January 21^st 2014
Possession of Class “A” Heroin
Client had been accused of dealing drugs from his motel room. According to police, they had credible information that client was dealing and proceeded to obtain a search warrant for evidence of drug dealing. The police were successful in obtaining the warrant and initiated a raid on what they thought was a drug compound. The result was that the young couple was caught in possession of drugs--not distributing them. They were arrested and Attorney Barabino reviewed the warrant in great detail and upon recognizing a defect, filed for a hearing to throw out the evidence. That hearing was granted, his motion allowed, and the drugs were not allowed to be used against the defendant. As a result, the case was dismissed.
RESULT: Motion to Suppress Search Warrant, ALLOWED, CASE DISMISSED.

December 17^th 2013
Resisting Arrest
Assault and Battery on a Police Office
Client, a hairdresser, had accumulated several criminal complaints against her, alleging she had committed several different crimes. In each case, the police alleged that the defendant was unruly and offensive to police when they arrived to respond to the 911 emergency calls. On one occasion, the defendant went into her home and refused to leave. When police asked her to step outside she, according to Police, pushed the officer from behind and used some profanity. When police began to arrest her, they claimed she required three cops to arrest her due to her violent nature and actions. Attorney Barabino and the defendant were comfortable in having a jury decide whether she intended to commit Assault and Battery on an Police Officer. However, at the trial date, it was unnecessary as the District Attorney simply dismissed the charge. Probation was allowed on the remaining charges and no jail time as a result.
RESULT: Assault and Battery on a Police Officer, DISMISSED. NO JAIL TIME ON OTHER CHARGE, RELEASED FROM CUSTODY.

December 5^th 2013
Malicious Destruction of Property
Malicious Destruction of Property
Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon
The defendant was at his home when police came and began an investigation into an allegation that he shot an elderly man with a BB gun, twice. When police interviewed the mother of defendant she declared that they were just out on the roof of their home shooting. Police recovered the BB gun and defendant and his mother made statements that were not helpful. Moreover, police had received other complaints of a similar nature the day before from this location, relating to the gun. A Motion to Suppress the statements made by the defendant's was filed. The judge allowed the defense's motion. After nearly a year, the case came to trial, and the limited evidence resulted in a full dismissal.
RESULT: Motion to Suppress Statements, ALLOWED, CASE DISMISSED AT TRIAL.

December 3^rd 2013
Assault and Battery
Client was a young, educated artist from India who came to the United States with her new husband. Shortly after the marriage, the husband made frequent and repeated monetary demands of the defendant and her family. He alleged that the demands were simply an extension of the dowry, or gift giving, in their country's custom. However, when she refused to provide more gifts, he filed for divorce and slammed her with a restraining order. He also claimed that she assaulted and battered him. Then he made attempts to obtain an abused spouse/domestic violence visa from law enforcement, which would have accelerated his own green card application. Then he obtained a restraining order after providing the court with a summary of private conversations that the defendant had with her family and were (accidentally) recorded by her while he was at work. Attorney Barabino was retained after the defendant discharged her prior attorney. When Attorney Barabino took over the case, he restarted the case from its beginning. He hired a forensic computer expert to examine the contents of the unconsented recordings. At the same time, he filed a Criminal Cross Complaint against the alleged victim. Time was of the essence since defendant was on a time sensitive schedule, which could have resulted in her being deported prior to her case being brought to trial. Negotiations resulted in an agreement for a postponed dismissal of the charge. No immigration consequences as well for defendant.
RESULT: Cross Complaint FILED, CASE DISMISSED in One Year, NO ADMISSION OF ANY EVIDENCE OR WRONGDOING, NO FEES, NO FINES.