Recent Cases

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.

April 29th 2013
Motion to Seal Record Chapter
Attorney Barabino persuaded the judge to seal all records of this case. As a matter of law, client may now truthfully answer on any job application that he has never been arrested for, or charged with, any crime.
RESULT: Petition to Seal, ALLOWED.

April 22^nd 2013
Leave Scene of Property Damage Chapter 90, Section 24 (2)(a)
Client was a hard working professional with no prior criminal record. According to police, they received a report that client had hit another person with a vehicle and left the scene. Client had no recollection of making any contact with any other vehicle. In fact, his recollection was an out of control woman yelling at him while he was parked at a stoplight, which he ignored. Prior to the Defendant’s arraignment, Attorney Barabino filed a Motion to Dismiss with a memorandum of law. This motion was allowed and the matter was remanded back to a Clerk Magistrate’s Hearing at a later date. At the Magistrate’s Hearing, the Magistrate grilled the Defendant and sought yet an additional date to continue the hearing. At the second date, the state police and Clerk Magistrate both took notice of the Defendant’s lack of criminal history, the statements of the parties, and the insurance information declaring the woman was paid back all her out of pocket cost. The case was dismissed as a result. No record of the incident will appear on the client's record, anywhere.
RESULT: No Criminal Complaint Issues at Clerk Magistrate Hearing, CASE DISMISSED.

April 8th 2013
Motion to Seal Record Chapter 276 Section 100(c)
Attorney Barabino succeeded in persuading a judge to dismiss Assault and Battery charges against a prominent and well-respected doctor some time ago. Client again rehired Attorney Barabino to petition the court to seal the matter. Today, Attorney Barabino persuaded the judge to seal all records of this case. As a matter of law, client may now truthfully answer on any job application that he has never been arrested for, or charged with, any crime.
RESULT: Petition to Seal, ALLOWED.