Recent Cases

Illegal Drug Possession, MOTION TO SUPPRESS ALLOWED, CASE DISMISSED

December 3rd 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.

Probation Violation, EXTENSION BUT WITH NO JAIL TIME AND NO CONVICTION

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.

Unlicensed Operation, Alcohol in Motor Vehicle, Inspection Sticker, MOTION TO DISMISS ALLOWED, ALL THREE CHARGES DISMISSED

November 24th 2012
Unlicensed Operation of a Motor Vehicle Chapter 90 Section 10
Inspection Sticker Chapter 90 Section 20
Alcohol in Motor Vehicle, Possession Open Container Chapter 90 Section 24I
Client was an out-of-state resident who was driving in Massachusetts without a license. He was stopped by police and charged with various offenses. According to the police report, client was stopped initially due to his lack of Massachusetts license, a criminal offense. Once he was stopped he was charged with other crimes. Attorney Barabino reviewed all the reports and ticketing information processed by police for this arrest. Upon a through review, he determined the tickets issued by police were not in compliance with required regulations. As a result of the police not following the proper requirements, he filed a Motion to Dismiss, along with a lengthy memorandum of law. The court held a hearing to listen to the legal arguments presented by Attorney Barabino, and at the conclusion of the hearing the judge allowed Attorney Barabino’s Motion to Dismiss the three charges.
RESULT: Motion to Dismiss, ALLOWED. ALL THREE CHARGES DISMISSED.

Operating to Endanger, APPLICATION FOR COMPLAINT DISMISSED

November 8th 2012
Operating to Endanger Chapter 90 Section 24
Client was an out-of-state college student who was charged with Operating to Endanger. According to police, client was driving in the early morning hours when he drove through a stop sign and into several parked motor vehicles causing over $100,000 of damage to two vehicles, a motorcycle, and a portion of a home. In the end, application for complaint was dismissed.
RESULT: Application for Complaint, DISMISSED.

Attempt to Commit Crime, NOT GUILTY, Disorderly Conduct, CHARGE FILED FOR A PERIOD OF TWO MONTHS

October 9th 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.

Assault and Battery, DISMISSED, Illegal Drug Distribution, DISMISSED

August 21nd 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.

Assault and Battery, DISMISSED

August 2nd 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

Assault and Battery, Vandalism, BOTH CHARGES DISMISSED

July 18th 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.

Sex Offense, LEVEL III OFFENDER STATUS LOWERED TO LEVEL II

July 13th 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.

Intent to Distribute, DISMISSED, Unlawful Drug Possession Charge, NOT GUILTY, School Zone Drug Violation, DISMISSED

June 29th 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.

1 … 52 53 54 … 63 Last »