Recent Cases

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.

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.