Recent Cases

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.

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.