Recent Cases

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

June 18^th 2013
Firearm on School Grounds, Carrying Chapter 269 Section 10(j)
Client, a building contractor, was found armed with a loaded .380 weapon on his person at a local university. Although licensed to carry the firearm, state law forbids such carrying without specific written permission from the campus police department, which he did not have. As a result, client was charged with the above offense. Client’s main concern was how a potential conviction could impact his license to carry in the future. After several court appearances, a Motion to Dismiss and a Motion to Suppress were filed, and a hearing was scheduled. On the day of the hearing and after all the parties discussed the issues, a resolution of simply dismissing the case after six months of unsupervised probation would close the matter.
RESULT: Motion to Suppress FILED, Deal Made, Six Months of Probation, CASE DISMISSED.

June 12^th 2013
Drug, Possession to Distribute Class B Chapter 94C Section 32A (a)
Client was a retired US Air Force officer with over twenty year of service. Client had been attempting to assist his girlfriend’s daughter in her struggle with drug addiction. Client and girlfriend were making attempts to detoxify daughter and purchased drugs so they could monitor her detoxification. While they were picking her up at a drug house, police surprised the group and arrested all three. The police based their arrest on the High Crime Area where they were, statements made, and an admission of drugs in their possession and other factors. Despite the reasons for being there, the police were not interested in any reduction of the charge. Attorney Barabino sought a full evidentiary hearing to challenge the constitutionally of the arrest. Today, the court issued their legal analysis indicating that Attorney Barabino’s argument was correct and that the drugs could not be used in the prosecution of the case---meaning the drugs seized were “suppressed”, or thrown out. Case Dismissed.
RESULT: Motion to Suppress ALLOWED, CASE DISMISSED.

May 16^th 2013
Firearm Carrying with Ammunition
Drug, Possession to Distribute
Client was a high school student who was being watched by the Lynn Gang Task Force. According the police, they saw client speaking with a high-ranking gang member who himself had been convicted of gun charges. Moments later, they arrested client with a Loaded .380 Handgun in his pocket and seventeen ecstasy pills. He was charged with a number of offenses, including possession of a loaded firearm and drug distribution. Initially, the young man was charged as a juvenile, but soon after those charges were dismissed and he was recharged under the Youthful Offender Law. Under the Youthful Offender Law, he could be sentenced to state prison. Client was released from custody after posting a substantial bail. After nearly three years of various hearings, motions, and challenges to the evidence, the case moved closer to trial. Attorney Barabino suppressed one piece of evidence, which prevented the Commonwealth from using the Defendant's statement that he was a member of the “CRIPS”. Once that was decided, a trial date was scheduled. At the trial date, all the Commonwealth's experts and the defense experts appeared as well as other witnesses. However, moments prior to the jury being selected, a deal was made that allowed client not to serve any jail time. Defendant was placed on a suspended sentence with no jail time served. The drugs had been excluded by agreement as they had been tainted by the “Dookham drug scandal”, so the drug charge was dismissed.
RESULT: After 1st Trial, Motion to Suppress, ALLOWED. NO JAIL TIME. Drug Distribution, DISMISSED.

May 8^th 2013
Malicious Destruction of Property Chapter
Malicious Destruction of Property Chapter
Client, a junior in high school, faced two potential complaints of Malicious Destruction of Property Over $250.00. The police alleged that client became angry and upset about being blamed for something he was not involved in. When client became angry, it was alleged that he went to a young woman’s home and threw large rocks at the home, damaging the foundation. Moreover, it was alleged that he damaged the motor vehicle at that same home, with a cost of over $250.00. Both charges are felonies. Today, at the clerk's hearing, Attorney Barabino persuaded the assistant clerk magistrate, with the assent of cooperative, professional, and understanding law enforcement, to hold the complaint open for ninety days. As long as client performed restitution, the case would be dismissed without ever appearing on client's criminal record.
RESULT: Application for Complaint, DISMISSED.