Recent Cases

January 29^th 2013
2nd OFFENSE OUI- Liquor or .08% Chapter 90 Section 24(1) (a) (1)
Negligent Operation of Motor Vehicle Chapter 90 Section 24(2)(a)
Leaving the Scene of Personal Injury Chapter 90 Section 24
Leaving the Scene of Personal Injury Chapter 90 Section 24
License Suspended, Operating Motor Vehicle with c90 §23
According to police, client was highly intoxicated, and the evidence of the intoxication was clear. According to eyewitnesses, client drove into two other vehicles and then ran off. Moments later, eyewitness confirmed to police that the Defendant was the operator of the motor vehicle. Once police confirmed that information they questioned client, who admitted that she was intoxicated and that she was the driver of the motor vehicle. Client failed the field sobriety test and once at the station agreed to take a Breathalyzer test, which concluded that she was twice (.16) the legal limit. After several witnesses testified, the jury at trial deliberated and returned a verdict of not guilty of all counts.
RESULT: ALL CHARGES NOT GUILTY AFTER TRIAL

January 10^th 2013
Leaving the Scene of Personal Injury Chapter 90 Section 24
Client was a licensed electrician who was charged with leaving the scene of personal injury. According to police, client was exiting onto a roadway when he struck a jogger with his vehicle. After contact was made, client undisputedly left the scene. Jogger was taken by ambulance to the hospital. At Magistrate Hearing, Attorney Barabino was able to provide perspective to all involved, which included phone calls, potential witnesses, and maps of the area to aid his client's case. Based on all the information presented, it became clear that client left the area, only briefly, and only due to the aggressive conduct of the jogger after being struck. In the end, no complaint was issued.
RESULT: Application for Complaint, DISMISSED.

December 20^th 2012
Drug, Possession to Distribute Class D Chapter 94C Section 32C(a)
Client was a young man with no criminal record. According to police, client was in a motor vehicle when police approached and saw what they described as smoke emitting from the windows. The police searched and interviewed all the people in the vehicle. During the search of the vehicle, they discovered two scales used for weighing marijuana, and marijuana itself. The amount of marijuana combined with the scales and statements resulted in the arrest of client and another. A Motion to Suppress was filed and testimony was elicited from the arresting officers as well as the parties charged with this crime. After a hearing, the court took the matter under advisement. At the next court date, the court issued their ruling, declaring that the police acted unconstitutionally and that the evidence should be thrown out as inadmissible. As a result, the charges were dismissed.
RESULT: Motion to Suppress, ALLOWED, CASE DISMISSED.

December 13^th 2012
Leave Scene of Property Damage
Client was a hard working music teacher and single dad. According to police, he was in a parking lot and accidently hit another motor vehicle and purposely refused to stop. Client had no criminal history and an excellent driving record. The District Attorney’s main concern was that the other party being made whole and that they had no out-of-pocket expenses. Once that was confirmed, Prosecution simply dismissed the charge with a $200 court cost. Client was very pleased with end result. Case dismissed.
RESULT: Leaving the Scene of Property Damage, DISMISSED.

December 13^th 2012
Yield at Intersection, Fail Chapter 89 Section 8
License Suspended, Operating Motor Vehicle with c90 §23
Leave Scene of Property Damage Chapter 90, Section 24 (2)(a)
Use of Motor Vehicle Without Authority Chapter 90, Section 24 (2)(a)
Client was a heavy machinery operator who was charged with multiple criminal and civil driving offenses. According to police, client drove into another vehicle and both motor vehicles were destroyed. Client had a suspended license for drinking and driving and had been charged prior to the incident in question. A guilty conviction after trial would have almost certainly meant jail time. The entire case hinged on an obvious identification flaw, and the Commonwealth admitted that flaw at the day of trial. As a result, they offered to dismiss nearly all the charges if client would admit to a lenient penalty on one of the charges. Client stood fast and refused the generous offer. In the end, the Commonwealth simply dismissed the entire case.
RESULT: ALL CRIMINAL AND CIVIL CHARGES DISMISSED.

December 11^th 2012
Unlawful Possession of a Firearm Chapter 269 Section 10(a)
Unlawful Possession of Ammunition Chapter 269 Section 10 (h)
Carrying a Loaded Firearm Chapter 269 Section 10(n)
Habitual Offender Statute Chapter 279 Section 25
Client was a hard working father and husband who had been standing on a sidewalk in Roxbury with several other men. Police arrived and searched all the people, including client. After they searched client they discovered he possessed a loaded 9mm firearm in his waistband. Client was arrested and charged with the above charges and appointed a public defender. The public defender did a great job of obtaining a dismissal of the Habitual Offender Law, which had exposed client to potential significant prison time. However, after nearly a year of litigating the case, client sought Attorney Barabino to represent him on the above firearms-related charges. Attorney Barabino conducted a thorough examination of the crime scene, called witnesses to testify, and asserted case law regarding search and seizure in an extensive memorandum of law. On the day he filed a Motion to Suppress was filed, Commonwealth filed a separate motion with the court to withdraw the case from prosecution. Case Closed.
RESULT: Motion to Suppress, FILED. CASE DISMISSED.

December 3^rd 2012
Drug, Possession to Distribute Class D Chapter 94C Section 32C(a)
Client, a young man in high school, was charged with Distributing Marijuana. According to police, client was in a parking lot with another person, after hours, when police performed a well-being check. Once police arrived, they smelled the odor of pot and detected other suspicious behavior. Police made Defendant exit the vehicle and located several separate bags of pot in his pocket upon search, as well as nearly $500 in cash. The police arrested and charged client and Attorney Barabino began criminal representation with client. An expert was hired with a specialty in drug distribution and several motions were filed to prepare for trial. Since it was expected that Attorney Barabino and client would only accept a complete dismissal or a not guilty verdict, the case was litigated for nearly a year and a half. During one hearing Attorney Barabino sought suppression of evidence and that request was allowed by the judge. With little expectation of success, the District Attorney simply dismissed the case. Attorney Barabino sought return of the client's so called drug money, and the court agreed and allowed the motion to return his property.
RESULT: Motion to Suppress, ALLOWED, CASE DISMISSED.

November 28th 2012
Probation Violation/Surrender Chapter 279 Section 3
Client was a college-educated professional already on probation for drug related offenses. During her period of probation, it was alleged that she flipped a motor vehicle and left the scene. The police investigating the incident came to the conclusion that she was probably the operator of the motor vehicle, despite her repeated assertions that she was not. Moreover, the police charged her with filing a false police report since they didn’t believe her statement that the car was stolen. As a result, a probation violation was found. At the final hearing, a joint agreement to extend probation by six months and that she could keep her CWOF—meaning no conviction--was made.
RESULT: Probation Extended with NO JAIL TIME AND NO CONVICTION.