Recent Cases

April 4th 2012
Drug, Possession to Distribute Class A
Drug Violation Near School/Park
Client was a hard working tattoo artist who was charged with Possession with Intent to Distribute Heroin within a school zone. The school zone charge is a minimum-mandatory sentence of two years in a house of correction. The police alleged that they came into his home and viewed numerous drug-dealing equipment and unsold heroin. The client had had a search warrant served on his premises merely a week before, and the police were eager to make a bust. In this case, the police received a 911 call that an assault took place at the premises and used that as part of their authority to enter the home of client. When they entered the home, they did not have a warrant, but did receive permission from roommates---but not enough permission to make the search legal. As a result, after nearly a year of litigating the case, Attorney Barabino along with the other co-defendants placed the case on for a Motion to Suppress the evidence that was recovered from police. The goal was to suppress the evidence (or throw out) all the drugs and drug dealing equipment from being used at trial as proof against defendants, because the search was not constitutionally legal. After the hearing, at which the police and defendants testified, the court issued a three page-decision agreeing with client that the police search was unconstitutional and all the evidence should be thrown out. As a result, the case against the client was dismissed on all counts.
RESULT: Motion to Suppress, ALLOWED, ENTIRE CASE DISMISSED.

March 9th 2012
Threats to commit a crime Chapter 275 Section 2
Client, an employee of a local hospital, was charged with threats against the new girlfriend of her ex-boyfriend. The police alleged that she repeatedly called the woman with nearly fifty texts and finally threatened to hurt the other person and made a voicemail stating that she was “on her way”. Client was very concerned since this would be her first criminal offense. Client took steps prior to the hearing that included therapeutic treatment and aftercare for her unstable emotional state. Attorney Barabino presented the medical documentation along with an explanation of what occurred. After hearing from both parties, The Clerk Magistrate was in agreement that a resolution to keep it open for six months and that no complaint would be filed. The application for the complaint would be dismissed in six months. This case would never appear on client's record, nor on any background check.
RESULT: Application for Complaint, DISMISSED.

March 1st 2012
Abuse Prevention Order Chapter 209A
Client was a young man and father that was on a three year suspended sentence in New Hampshire for another crime. If he was convicted on the above offense of violating a restraining order, he would not only be charged for his crime in Massachusetts but would also serve a three year sentence in New Hampshire. According to the police, client was seen leaving a restricted area that he was ordered to stay away from. At trial, Attorney Barabino requested the court appoint an attorney to investigate if the complainant was lying to police. At the conclusion of the hearing, the complainant was required not to testify, leaving the Commonwealth with only one option---to dismiss the case.
RESULT: Restraining Order Charge DISMISSED ON THE DAY OF TRIAL.

February 17th 2012
2nd OFFENSE OUI- Liquor or .08%
Child Endangerment with Operating Under the Influence
Client was an employee with the Department of Defense. He was charged with Reckless Endangerment of a Child and Operating Under the Influence of Alcohol Second Offense. According to the police, the client's ex-wife received a call from client that he was intoxicated and driving around with her child. She became frantic and searched for client. When she located him, she argued with him driving the motor vehicle in the condition he was in and refused to give her the keys. She left (with her son) and called police since client had insisted on driving. She cooperated with police and police found him a few hundred years down the road. They stated that he failed the sobriety test and failed the Breathalyzer with a reading of 3.1%. 3.1% is nearly four times the legal limit. Prior to trial, Attorney Barabino made vigorous attempts to have the case thrown out in its entirety but was not successful. As the case moved forward, he sent the case down for Motion to Dismiss hearing regarding the Reckless Endangerment charge (which carried mandatory jail time), and that motion was allowed. At the day of trial, every witness appeared, leaving the client with the pre-trial option of a plea, which he eagerly sought. When the deal was argued before the judge, the Commonwealth asked the judge to force client to attend parenting classes and install a Sobrietier machine installed in his home. Attorney Barabino argued against it and was successful. The judge agreed with Attorney Barabino and the client left court with what he wanted---no jail time.
RESULT: Reckless Endangerment of a Child, DISMISSED, Motion to Dismiss, ALLOWED, NO JAIL TIME ON SECOND OFFENSE.

February 13th 2012
Assault and Battery Chapter 265 Section 15a
Intimidation of a Witness Chapter 268 Section 13b
Client was a non-citizen computer programmer with a bright future. As a married professional from Pakistan with children born in the United States, he had every expectation of continuing his life and career in the US. He was charged with Assault and Battery and Intimidation of a Witness (his wife). The police alleged that he assaulted her with a boot and refused to allow her to call police. Eventually, she went inside her home and called police. When police arrived, she made damaging statements to them and allowed them to take pictures of her injury. Attorney Barabino took the case to trial and since the wife was precluded from testifying as a result of a “spousal privilege”, the case was dismissed entirely.
RESULT: Defendant’s Request to Dismiss, ALLOWED. NO RECORD.

February 8th 2012
Assault with a Dangerous Weapon Chapter 265 Section 15B
Resisting Arrest Chapter 268 Section 32B
Client was hardworking professional and single dad who needed solid representation. He was charged with Assault with a Dangerous Weapon and Resisting Arrest. According to the police report, client brandished a gun when his ex-wife appeared at his door. She failed to mention to police that the gun was a “pellet gun”, and police consequentially arrived in full force surrounding the home. The client didn’t help his case when he briefly left the home under the cover of night. Eventually he turned himself in to law enforcement and allowed the search to take place, resulting in no one being hurt---but with him being charged with one felony offense. Commonwealth sought immediate imprisonment under 58A-Dangerousness Statute resulting in a Full Evidentiary Hearing. After a hearing and sworn testimony, judge released defendant, on no bail and no conditions of release. After release, Attorney Barabino filed a Motion to Dismiss which the Judge allowed after a hearing. A trial was scheduled on last remaining charge and client refused every offer for a deal. In the end, the District Attorney simply agreed to dismiss it in a year, with no probation and no admission to any act.
RESULT: 58A Imprisonment Hearing, UNSUCCESSFULLY, MOTION TO DISMISS ALLOWED, CONDITIONAL DISMISSAL OF REMAINING CHARGE ALLOWED.

February 1st 2012
Malicious Destruction of Property Chapter 266 Section 127
Assault and Battery Chapter 265 Section 15
Assault Chapter 265 Section 13A
Breaking and Entering in the Nighttime for Felony Chapter 266 Section 16
Client was a kind and considerate businessman who was angry with his ex-wife. According to the police report, he went to his ex-wife’s home in the early morning hours while intoxicated and tried to kick in the door. His repeated kicks were unsuccessful in gaining her attention, so he punched the door until his fist penetrated to the other side. Once he penetrated through the door, he began to tear the door apart until his upper body could fit through. At that time police alleged that he was able to grab the ex-wife’s friend arm leaving a bruise that they photographed. Police state that they approached the Defendant and his body was partially through the door. He refused to obey police commands and was consequentially pepper-sprayed. A 911 tape recorded by the police supported the entire fact pattern which police described. However, despite prior convictions for violating a restraining order and crimes of violence—no jail time was imposed.
RESULT: CLIENT NOT HELD ON DANGEROUSNESS REQUEST/58A and allowed to be released on a electronic monitoring bracelet, Disposition Negotiated, NO JAIL OR SUSPENDED SENTENCE, NO BATTERERS TREATMENT, NO ANGER MANAGEMENT

January 24rd 2012
Haverhill District Court
Reckless Endangerment of Child Chapter 265 Section 13L

Client was a professional educator and administrator charged with the above crime. An admission to this crime or a plea or verdict of guilt would be a career-ender. More importantly, client justifiably thought that the allegations were not correct. According to the police report, a concerned citizen saw a young boy in an unlocked vehicle, alone with no parent nearby. When police arrived, they said the boy had not been fed his dinner, and despite the mother coming to the vehicle to explain her brief absence, they sought to investigate further. Upon investigating further, they found witnesses who said client had been inside doing shots and another mixing drinks for well over an hour. Although true, this was from earlier when child wasn’t with her. The police gathered bar receipts and witnesses to make their claim that the leaving of the child was supportive of the charge of reckless endangerment. Attorney Barabino had already researched legal case law for this charge before her first court appearance and knew that the Commonwealth would not be successful at trial and that an acquittal was inevitable. However, to ensure that client's rights were preserved at every opportunity, he filed a motion to dismiss with a memorandum of law and scheduled the matter for a hearing. At the hearing, the court intently and patiently listened to all sides. At the end of the hearing, the District Attorney agreed to simply leave the case open for three months with a condition that client not drink alcohol. If she did that, the prosecution would stop and/or halt the matter and dismiss in three months time.

RESULT: CONDITIONAL DISMISSAL. NO CRIMINAL RECORD, NO ADMISSION TO ANY CRIMINAL CONDUCT.