Recent Cases

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.

January 23rd 2012
Waltham District Court
Assault and Battery Chapter 265 Section 15a
Disorderly Conduct Chapter 272 Section 53

Client was with a fellow international student and both were enrolled at a prestigious school just outside Boston when they became involved in an incident with a young man and his girlfriend. According to the police report provided, the pair was heavily intoxicated when they approached a young couple and asked them for money. After asking for money, they apparently starting shoving and eventually fighting one of the men in the hospital. The parents of client had a number of legitimate concerns, primarily that: 1) their son would go to jail; 2) their son would be found guilty of a crime; 3) their son would have a criminal record; and 4) their case would possibly prevent an application for US Citizenship in the future. After negotiating the case with an attentive and hard-working District Attorney office, a resolution was agreed to that resulted in none of the above concerns. Basically, the young men would have to work in a soup kitchen for a total of twenty hours, stay out of trouble, and in six months the case would be history.

RESULT: PROSECUTION STOPPED, TWENTY HOURS COMMUNITY SERVICE AND PAY $100, AFTER SIX MONTHS DISMISSAL

December 7^th 2011
Salem District Court
Malicious Destruction of Property over $250.00
Malicious Destruction of Property over $250.00
Client was charged with Malicious Destruction of Property over $250.00. According to the police, he sent threatening texts to the mother of his children early in the AM hours. Soon after the accuser said she saw client outside her home walking back and forth, and when she went to huddle her children into a room, a brick was thrown at her window, shattering it. She immediately called 911 and reported the incident. When police arrived they noticed her car windshield was also broken. Client was charged with felony counts that each carried an up to two-year house of correction sentence. There was a real possibility of each sentence being imposed to its fullest since client had a seven page record that listed convictions on various crimes of violence---as well as several restraining orders. The District Attorney zealously (yet fairly and professionally) pursued the case---but she could not rehabilitate the evidence that she was given since in the end the attentive and alert jury rendered a verdict of not guilty on both counts.
RESULT: Jury Verdict, NOT GUILTY, BOTH COUNTS, CLIENT RELEASED FROM CUSTODY.

November 17^th 2011
Vandalize Property Chapter 266 Section 126A
Tagging Chapter 266 Section 126B
Vandalize Property Chapter 266 Section 126A
Tagging Chapter 266 Section 126B
Client was charged with spray painting or “tagging” several different places in the city of Peabody. The client denied any involvement and the police had no evidence to support a conviction. Normally, the district attorney wouldn’t even allow such a case to go forward—but with a prior charge in Lawrence, client was identified as a “tagger” and the DA was prepared to introduce prior bad acts of his tagging noted from Lawrence police officers. A simple case initially, but in the end, fairly complex. Ultimately, a trial was scheduled and both Attorney Barabino and the District Attorney answered ready for trial. As the case was about to get underway, last minute negotiations resulted in a straight dismissal of the charges if the client paid three hundred dollars. After a brief discussion, the client he was eager to walk out of court for multiple felony counts---for the restitution of three hundred dollars.
RESULT: All Felony and Misdemeanor Counts DISMISSED AT TRIAL, upon Payment of $300 in Restitution