Recent Cases

October 9^th 2012
Attempt to Commit Crime Chapter 274 Section 6
Disorderly Conduct Chapter 272 Section 53
Client, a retired airlines employee, was charged with attempting to commit a crime and disorderly conduct. According to police, client had entered the hallway of an apartment building and repeatedly struck the door with her foot. The occupant watched this occur through her peephole and after increased concern, called police. Police then stopped the Defendant down the street from the apartment complex. When interviewed by them, client gave conflicting accounts of what occurred and she was arrested for attempting to break in to the apartment and disorderly conduct. At trial, the District Attorney attempted to modify the complaint to reflect a subsequent charge of disorderly conduct since she had been convicted before this date in a separate incident. The judge denied that request and the client ultimately passed no time in jail for that charge. After trial, the evidence of the witnesses failed to support a charge of breaking and entering and the client was acquitted.
RESULT: NOT-GUILTY of Attempt to Commit a Crime Charge, Disorderly Conduct Charge FILED for a period of two Months.

August 21^nd 2012
Assault and Battery Chapter 265 Section 15?
Possession to Distribute Class “D” Chapter 94C Section 32(c)
Client was a landscaper who was in warrant status as a result of not reporting to his probation officer. Moreover, he was charged with new crimes of Assault and Battery and Distributing Class “D” (marijuana). Attorney Barabino brought to the charges straight to trial---little time to waste since there would be consequences from his probation officer if he was convicted of new charges. At trial, the Commonwealth was unable to secure the necessary witnesses to present their evidence, and the Assault and Battery was dismissed. Attorney Barabino next filed what is called waiver of jury to allow the judge to hear the remaining evidence for distribution. Once that was complete, the District Attorney simply assented that their probability of securing a verdict was low—so low that they agreed to dismiss the distribution charge in its entirety.
RESULT: Assault and Battery Charge DISMISSED. Distribution Charge DISMISSED.

August 2^nd 2012
Assault and Battery Chapter 265 Section 15
According to police, client and boyfriend had called police twice in one night. The first time police spoke with both the client and her boyfriend and left the home---assured that no further commotion would occur. When police were called to the home a second time, they noticed that the boyfriend had marks and scraps that were not visible before. The police then made inquiry to the client and after doing so were satisfied that she was the aggressor. As a result, they charged her with assault and battery. As a non-citizen, a dismissal was essential and an acquittal had to be obtained. At trial, the boyfriend became “unavailable” as a result of a Fifth Amendment hearing, ultimately resulting in a dismissal of the charge.
RESULT: Fifth Amendment of Witness at Trial Results in Assault and Battery Charge DISMISSED

July 18^th 2012
Assault and Battery
Vandalize Property
Client, a former NHL Player and Vietnam War veteran, was charged with assault and battery and vandalizing property. According to the police report, a young boy in the neighborhood was acting unruly and assaultive towards other young boys and girls. Client, witnessing this dangerous behavior, took action by restraining the young boy—leaving a small mark and (possibly) ripping his shirt. Fortunately, a seasoned and experienced district attorney was assigned to the case, who after speaking and doing her own investigation, determined that the actions of defendant should not be criminally prosecuted---the case was dismissed.
RESULT: BOTH CHARGES DISMISSED.

July 13^th 2012
The Sex Offender Registry Board (SORB) categorized client, a father of two, as a Level III Sex Offender. When the Board determines that the risk of re-offense is high and the degree of dangerousness posed to the public is such that a substantial public safety interest is served by active dissemination, it gives a Level III designations to the sex offender. The Level III status is devastating to the offender since it requires active public notification wherever the offender lives and employs. In the present case, Attorney Barabino conducted countless interviews and assembled all the relevant documentation for presentation to the SORB Board. After several weeks of waiting for the written decision, all the parties were notified that client was reduced to a Level II status---consequently not requiring public notification of his crimes.
RESULT: Client’s Level III Status LOWERED FROM LEVEL III TO LEVEL II.

June 29^th 2012

Drug, Possession to Distribute Class A Chapter 94C Section 32A (a)


Unlawful Drug Possession Chapter 94C Section 34

Drug Violation Near School/Park Chapter 94C 32 J


Client was employed in the construction field and work was slow. According to the police, they saw client (with whom they were familiar) pull behind another car that they were secretly watching. They observed client’s passenger get out of the car and sell heroin to a young couple. The police were there at the right time and the right place. In fact, the group of officers observing the transaction was from the Special Response Team (SRT), which consisted of experienced, knowledgeable drug enforcement officers. Their hunch of illegal activity was correct---they witnessed a drug transaction. The police arrested all involved and client was charged with possession of heroin, possession of heroin with intent to distribute, and possession with intent to distribute within a school zone. The last charge, intent to distribute within a school zone carries a two year house of correction jail sentence. That two-year sentence is mandatory. When a charge is mandatory, that means no suspended sentence, house arrest, or probation—the person must go to a correctional facility for two years (eligible for parole after one year). For some “mandatory” charges there are provisions for a suspended sentence---but not with a “school zone charge”. The case proceeded through the court system for nearly a year. The other people that were arrested at the same time, called (co-defendants), were represented by other lawyers and admitted to guilt. Any admission of guilt for Attorney Barabino’s client was unacceptable---a decision he and his client made early on in the case. However, when prior to a hearing an offer of dismissing the school zone charge and the distribution charge and admitting to “sufficient facts” for the possession charge was proposed, client was ready to agree to a deal. In addition, client consented to forfeiting his nearly $1,000 in cash, which was located on his person. If he remains out of trouble for a year, his charge will be dismissed entirely.
RESULT: School Zone, DISMISSED, Intent to Distribute, DISMISSED, Possession Charge, NOT GUILTY.

June 26th 2012
Drug, Possession to Distribute Class A Chapter 94C Section 32A (a)

Unlawful Drug Possession Chapter 94C Section 34
Drug Violation Near School/Park Chapter 94C 32 J

Negligent Operation of Motor Vehicle Chapter 90 Section 24(2)(a)

Speeding in Violation of Special Regulation Chapter 90 Section 18
License Suspended, Operation Motor Vehicle, Subsequent Offense Chapter 90 Section 23E
Client was recently licensed barber who was charged with several offenses. Those offenses included Possession of Heroin, Possession of Heroin with the Intent to Distribute, School Zone/Park Drug Violation, Negligent Operation of a Motor Vehicle, Failure to Stop for Police, Driving on a Suspended License Subsequent Offense, and related civil infractions. According to police, they saw client driving and they knew from prior knowledge that he did not have an active license. They stated they were “very familiar” with client. The statement that they were very familiar with client was supported by the client’s former arrest for distribution and possession of drugs. When they hit the sirens to pull him over he took off and the police chased him for several streets until they caught him on a one way. After client was stopped, they arrested him and took him for booking. After the arrest they found ten separate baggies of what was heroin, packaged in a method consistent with distribution of the drug. Moreover, and very problematic for the Defendant, was that the police charged him with distributing the drugs in a school zone, which carries a two-year house of correction sentence—mandatory—meaning no suspended sentence, no house arrest and obligatory jail time. After nearly a year of litigating the case and hiring an expert in distribution of drugs, the day of trial finally arrived. At trial, the Commonwealth brought with them their own expert in drug distribution, an expert in school zone measurement, two police officers, a chemist from the State Police crime lab, and a representative from the Department of the Registry of Motor Vehicles. Despite Attorney Barabino's ability to and desire to prove his client's innocence, a deal was offered that client was very receptive to. The deal included the Commonwealth dismissing the School Zone Drug Violation charge, dismissing the Possession Charge, reducing the Driving on a Suspended License offense from a subsequent offense to a first offense, a Continuation Without a Finding on the Negligent Operation of a Motor Vehicle, and no fine imposed for the civil offenses.
RESULT: School Zone, DISMISSED, Driving on a Suspended License Subsequent Offense, REDUCED TO FIRST OFFENSE, NO JAIL TIME FOR ANY CHARGE.

May 24th 2012
Assault and Battery Chapter 265 Section 15?
Breaking and Entering in the Nighttime for Felony Chapter 266 Section 16
Vandalize Property Chapter 266 Section 126A
Vandalize Property Chapter 266 Section 126A
Intimidation of a Witness Chapter 268 Section 13b
Assault with a Dangerous Weapon Chapter 265 Section 15B
Client was a laid off manufacturing employee who had a rocky relationship with his daughter’s mother. According to police and his police record, client has been accused of assaulting her in the past. In fact, she and her child were placed in a residential location paid for via the Commonwealth based on her alleged fear of client. On this occasion, daughter's mother claimed that client was able to locate her from an unknown source and when he knocked on her door he pushed himself in the room. Once inside the room, he held her down on the bed and punched her twice in the face. After this struggle, the report stated that he broke two telephones and assaulted her child. Once over, he left the premises and she, exhausted and out of breath, called 911. She informed the police of what had occurred and they placed a warrant out for client's arrest. Once arrested, a separate hearing was requested from the District Attorney’s office called a 58A. The purpose of the 58A was to see if bail should even be a consideration in this case. The District Attorney was successful and client was detained until trial. Attorney Barabino and his client had one alternative for the District Attorney to consider. That was drop all the charges or fill in the jury box. No deal was reached. Defense knew that what alleged victims had told police could be defended in court and there was another story to be told. At the day of trial, Attorney Barabino and his client rejected all offers for a deal. However, as the trial was moments away from beginning, there was one offer client could not say no too. The offer was to drop five of the six charges in their entirety and the one charge of assault and battery to continue without a finding, which simply means the if client completes the term of probation the one charge will be dismissed.
RESULT: FIVE OUT OF SIX CHARGES DROPPED. CONDITIONAL DISMISSAL OF MISDEMEANOR.