Recent Cases

September 18^th 2013
Larceny from a Building
Client was a young man charged with the felony offense of Larceny from a Building. According to police and surveillance video provided by the establishment, the Defendant did take a pocketbook. However, after several witnesses testified that the bag was left untouched in his friend’s car and the Defendant testified himself explaining that his girlfriend had the same type of purse, the jury quickly agreed that he simply made a mistake.
RESULT: Jury Verdict: NOT- GUILTY

September 5^th 2013
Breaking and Entering Building Nighttime for Felony Chapter 266 Section 16
Breaking and Entering Building Nighttime for Felony Chapter 266 Section 16
Client was a high school student with supportive and loving parents. Client and another young man snuck out and entered some vehicles in the nighttime. The evidence was clear—they were seen on videotape and the police found them at the car. Eventually, Attorney Barabino presented the court with a motion to suppress statements made by the Defendant. Negotiations were triggered and offers made. The District Attorney agreed to reduce from felony to misdemeanors—and agreed to a probation term that allowed for a case to be dismissed at the end of the probation. We could do better—we had to do better. After nearly seven months of litigating the case---we respectfully declined this otherwise well-intentioned and reasonable offer. The reason we declined is two-fold. One, if he violates probation during the next year he could be found guilty. He could receive a “CWOF” or continued without a finding, which can be considered for many jobs as the equivalent of a guilty verdict since unlawful conduct is admitted. In the end, an already reasonable District Attorney agreed to pre-trial probation with conditions so this young man could truthfully admit he had never admitted to any criminal activity.
RESULT: Motion to SUPPRESS, FILED. CASE DISMISSED, with conditions of remaining in therapy and completing 50 hours of community service.

September 4^th 2013
Negligent Operation of Motor Vehicle
Speeding in Violation of Special Regulation
License Suspended, Operation Motor Vehicle, Subsequent Offense
Assault with a Dangerous Weapon
Resisting Arrest
Attempted Murder
Client was a hardworking father and employee who required representation for several charges. According to police he was a member of a reputed motorcycle gang and was intent on killing a high-ranking member of the local police force. The client was charged with Attempted Murder, Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon, Assault and Battery on a Police Officer, Negligent Operation of a Motor Vehicle, Operating with a Suspended Licenses Subsequent Offense, Resisting Arrest and some civil ordinance violations. According to police, he tried to evade a stop, and tried to kill the officer with his motorcycle and upon being physically stopped tried to assault and beat the officer and resist arrest. A struggle lasted in what the District Attorney stated was one of this officer's most violent struggles. At one point the police alleged that he came dangerously close to his firearm. Eventually, the struggle ended and client was charged with the crimes noted above. Attorney Barabino and client moved through the court process, which the Attempted Murder was first dismissed and no indictment occurred. The matter resolved in District Court and the jury concluded that despite all the allegations, the Commonwealth did not prove that client intended to harm anyone.
RESULT: NOT-GUILTY on Assault and Battery with a D/W, Attempted Murder DISMISSED, License Suspension Subsequent DISMISSED, Assault and Battery on Police Officer DISMISSED after Verdict MISTRIAL.

August 8^th 2013
Drug, Possession to Distribute Class A Chapter 94C Section 32A (a)
Drug, Possession to Distribute Class B Chapter 94C Section 32A (a)
Drug, Possession to Distribute Class C Chapter 94C Section 32A (a)
Client was under observation from police when he was stopped and arrested. According to police, they stopped Defendant and saw drugs in plain view on his car seat. The police searched the vehicle and located what they believed to be various drugs that were being prepared for distribution. The drugs that were allegedly intended to be distributed were thought by police to be Neurontin, Lexapro and Codeine. After nearly two years of litigating the case in court, a drug certification was provided to the Defendant, which stated that some of the drugs were in fact heroin. To add to the confusion, there was no chemist to testify as to the specific composition of the drugs at trial, which is almost always necessary for a conviction. At the day of trial, the Commonwealth was unable to secure the presence of the State Chemist. Attorney Barabino asked the court to dismiss the case as a result. The court, for various reasons, allowed the request for a dismissal. Case Closed.
RESULT: Possession with Intent to Distribute Class A, B & C Drugs, DISMISSED.

July 30^th 2013
Vandalize Property
Disorderly Conduct
Client was spending time with her boyfriend at a local hotel. According to police, they were overflowing their room's bathtub when they were called. As a result, the police and firefighters responded to the hotel room. When they arrived, boyfriend simply refused to allow law enforcement entry to the room. They were forced to pry open the door—resulting in even more damage. In the end, the court allowed a motion to dismiss for the vandalism charge and simply a dismissal for the Disorderly Conduct charge if the client agreed to a court cost expense of $150.
RESULT: Motion to Dismiss, ALLOWED, Disorderly Conduct DISMISSED on Court Cost.

July 22^nd 2013
Uttering a False Prescription Section 94C Section 33E
Client was a licensed professional who had been caught by law enforcement passing a false prescription for a narcotic. The evidence was clear, and the police did an investigation that was accurate, professional and proper. The client had no criminal record, and the police were receptive to negotiating the matter. Attorney Barabino was able to meet with law enforcement prior to the magistrates hearing and at the hearing produced mitigating documentation, which included prescription history as well as evidence of new drug screen and related matters. As long as client does not re-offend and remains out of any criminal conduct, the matter will be dismissed without client ever appearing in a courtroom and more importantly without any stains on her criminal record.
RESULT: Application for Complaint, DISMISSED.

June 28^th 2013
Possession of Class “A” Heroin
Client was seen purchasing drugs with another female. Once police saw this activity they noticed and observed even more incriminating behavior. They approached the vehicle client and friend were in, and when they did the police saw heroin in plain view in her hand. Also within plain were items used to inject heroin. Client had desire to bring case to closure as quickly as possible, so Attorney Barabino negotiated a deal with the District Attorney that allowed her a one-year probation period with no guilty finding. In the end, the case would be dismissed after one year and client did not have to appear again in court as she was given administrative probation and did not have to have any drug testing.
RESULT: NO DRUG TESTING, NO FURTHER COURT DATES OR PROBATION RESTRICTIONS, NO FINDING OF GUILT

June 27^th 2013 

Violation of Abuse Prevention Order
Client was a young man with a supportive family. According to police, he contacted an ex-girlfriend after she properly obtained a no-contact restraining order against him. According to the court order presented in court—the Defendant was not to call or contact the victim. At trial, the young lady whom he was supposed to have no contact emotionally recalled him calling her after the order was obtained—a direct violation. After cross-examination, the Defendant rested his case and several hours later the jury returned a verdict of not-guilty. 

RESULT: Jury Verdict, NOT-GUILTY