Recent Cases

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.

May 14th 2012
Abuse Prevention Order Chapter 209A
Client was a hard working and all around easy-going single dad trying his best to be a father to his young daughter, with whom his ex had custody. His ex went to police one day stating she was in fear of serious imminent harm since client (she alleged) threatened him. At the 10-day hearing, client's ex-girlfriend reasserted all the claims she had made before and stated others such as their daughter came home with a bruised cheek and a chipped tooth. Attorney Barabino had both his client testify and his client's mother---both of whom provided documentation to the court, which included text messages and police reports. The judge credited both of Attorney Barabino’s witnesses and as a result vacated the restraining order in its entirety.
RESULT: Ten-day Hearing Outcome Results in Favor of Client, RESTRAINING ORDER VACATED.

April 12th 2012
Assault with a Dangerous Weapon Chapter 265 Section 15B (b)
Disorderly Conduct Chapter 272 Section 53
Client was unemployed and was charged with Assault with a Dangerous Weapon as well as Disorderly Conduct. Police allege that he was purchasing alcohol when he had a dispute with another gentleman and that man's female friend. Eventually a knife was alleged to have been displayed by client and client was subsequently arrested. Initially, client refused to admit to wrongdoing to the police—yet when police interviewed him a second time, he admitted threatening the other man. However, when police interviewed client that second time, he was not given his Miranda Rights. When that was discovered, Attorney Barabino filed for a Motion to Suppress all the statements made, since the police did not “mirandize” client. The court, after reviewing and hearing testimony, agreed with Attorney Barabino and allowed his Motion to Suppress the admission of guilt. At the day of trial, the witnesses recanted their testimony---the District Attorney simply dropped the charge of Assault with a Dangerous Weapon.
RESULT: Motion to Suppress, ALLOWED, Assault with a Dangerous Weapon, DROPPED.

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.