Recent Cases

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.

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.