Recent Cases

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

November 10^th 2011
Drug, Possession to Distribute Class A Chapter 94C Section 32A (a)
Drug Violation Near School/Park Chapter 94C 32 J
Law Enforcement was watching client as he moved in and out of a motor vehicle that they had been monitoring. As they observed client and other known parties enter and exit motor vehicles, they moved in arrested all the parties. Client was charged with a distributing heroin in a school zone as well as possession to distribute heroin. The school zone violation requires a minimum two-year house of correction prison sentence, and the distribution charge would be on and after time---prison time. In this case on and after prison time was a real possibility---almost a certainty. Client had a six page “rap sheet” detailing prior convictions for larceny, receiving stolen property, breaking and entering, drug possession, resisting arrest, possession to distribute heroin, possession to distribute in a school zone and conspiracy, among others. In challenging the charges, Attorney Barabino filed a memorandum detailing the factors that should demand a dismissal of the charges. That memorandum, along with a motion and relevant case law required one result---that the motion to dismiss all the charges should be allowed, and the District Attorney agreed to the motion moments prior to starting the formal hearing.
RESULT: Motion to Dismiss Both Charges, ALLOWED, CASE DISMISSED.

November 8^th 2011
Lewdness, Open and Gross Chapter 272 Section 16
Lewdness, Open and Gross Chapter 272 Section 16
According to police, a witness saw client pull his penis out of his pants when she drove by him. Then the witness saw client again, and once again he repeated the act. Police located and arrested client and placed two sex charges against him. If client was found guilty of the charges, he would surely have been required to register as a sex offender (SORB) aside from any imprisonment---and potential deportation—as he was not a US citizen. Moreover, client had previously been charged with Criminal Harassment, Accosting, Lewd and Lascivious Behavior, Open and Gross, Peeping Tom, and other non-sex crimes. Attorney Barabino had no choice but to bring the case to trial as the Commonwealth would be seeking the maximum penalties. However, once all parties appeared ready at trial, the Commonwealth was unable to secure the presence of that key eyewitness---resulted in a request from Attorney Barabino to dismiss the charges, which was allowed.
RESULT: BOTH CHARGES DISMISSED, NO RECORD OF SEX CHARGES, NO SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION.