Recent Cases

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.

October 22^nd 2013
False Report of Motor Vehicle Theft
Client was a young, college educated professional who was charged with falsifying a stolen motor vehicle report. Although the young woman had been in previous entanglements with the law, she did not have a criminal record. If she were to be found guilty of this charge she would be a convicted felon. The consequences would be disastrous. After moving the case through the court for nearly a year and half, the trial date arrived. At trial, there was an option for a deal that became acceptable for the District Attorney, which included a reduction in the charge, as long as the young woman were to engage in therapy, remain drug and alcohol free with random screens, and pay a monthly fee to the court. The result of this disposition gave the defendant a chance to prove herself, remain an employed and productive member of society, while moving forward with her life drug free. A win-win for all involved.
RESULT: CHARGE REDUCED, 12 MONTH CONDITIONAL PROBATION, DISMISSAL at End of Year.

September 24^th 2013
Drug, Possession Class B (Cocaine) Chapter 94C Section 34
Drug, Possession to Distribute Class C Chapter 94C Section 32A (a)
Drug, Possession to Distribute Class C Chapter 94C Section 32A (a)
Drug, Possession to Distribute Class B Chapter 94C Section 32A (a)
Drug Possession Class C Chapter 94C Section 34
Drug Possession Class C Chapter 94C Section 34
Client was driving on an expired hardship license or "Cinderella" license. That license is valid for only a twelve-hour period, once per day. On this day, police pulled over client who was driving in violation of that license restriction. A traffic stop occurred and eventually various drugs were located by police. Client was charged, along with his vehicle's passengers, for the above offenses. After several months, a Motion to Suppress Evidence was prepared and a memorandum of law outlining why the police did not properly follow the rules drafted. The court agreed with Attorney Barabino's request for a dismissal. On the date of the hearing the Commonwealth agreed that the stop was not in accordance with the rules of stopping a vehicle and the motion was allowed.
RESULT: Motion to SUPPRESS, FILED AND ALLOWED via agreement, All charges DISMISSED, $100.00 fine for unlicensed operation charge.

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.