Recent Cases

October 2, 2014
Negligent Operation of Motor Vehicle
Marked Lanes Violation
Client was a hardworking web-programmer. She was driving her motorcycle on the state highway in a reckless manner at speeds exceeding 100 mph. When pulled over by police, she immediately complied with the officer's order to stop, and was apologetic. Despite her apologies, the professional and respectful trooper issued her a criminal summons, and appropriately so. Based on a number of factors, including client’s background and history, Attorney Barabino’s request to have the criminal charge be stayed and not go forward if the civil portion of the claim were paid was allowed.
Result: Application for Criminal Complaint, NOT ISSUED.

September 27, 2014
Larceny over $250.00
Client was a radio personality who was also a trustee of his condominium. In his role as trustee, he borrowed money without authority and failed to pay his personal condominium fee. The result was that he owed the condominium board close to $25,000. The police were called and interviewed the client. Client admitted that he owed funds. In the end, a significant effort was made by many people over nearly eight months to enter into an agreement whereby a promissory note attached to client's own mortgage would ensure that the funds were paid back. Police were willing to allow the parties to make the agreement without applying for a criminal complaint or indictment.
Result: Client pays back $24,248.68 via payment plan, NO COMPLAINT TO ISSUE.

September 26, 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 realized 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, 2014
Larceny over $250.00
Shoplifting
Larceny under $250.00
Client was pursuing his Master's 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 consequently 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. The client's convictions would be dismissed if the defendant were to pay back the $4,800.00 within eighteen months. Also, the court allowed the 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, 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 tests (FSTs), 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 the client brought the case to trial, to which the Commonwealth stated it was not ready. Attorney Barabino requested that the charge be dropped or “dismissed”, to which the judge agreed. Charge dismissed.
Result: CASE DISMISSED.

August 19, 2014
OUI - Liquor or .08%
Client was a hard-working supermarket manager. After having a few drinks after work one day, he encountered a DWI/OUI roadblock on his way home. 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.
Result: Jury returns verdict of NOT GUILTY, Motion to reinstate license, ALLOWED.

August 11, 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 License Suspended is significant. Driving with a suspended license for OUI had a 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 the client to jail, he declined to enter the proper verdict. The proper verdict was not guilty. After providing the client with appellate counsel, the case was brought back to the court and his record amended to the lesser-included offense. In the end, the defendant was not guilty of the original charge.
Result: NOT GUILTY of the original charge, Docket Amended, NO JAIL TIME.

August 7, 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 through 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. On 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 have 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.