Recent Cases

July 8th 2010
OUI- Liquor or .08%
Negligent Operation of Motor Vehicle
Marked Lanes Violation
According to police, client drives past them speeding, and negligently drove through a stop sign. After police stopped client, the standard sobriety test were given and police thought the result was unacceptable. The police administered a Breath test when client responded, “yeah, I’ll take it but I’m going to be drunk”. He was legally intoxicated according to that test and the second test at the police station confirmed it. The client's question from the beginning was, I did it---now how do I fix it and get my license back? Once client came to Attorney Barabino he had already been arraigned and needed representation. Attorney Barabino filed a motion to have the case heard within six days of hiring—and disposed of the case four days after in court. In court, Attorney Barabino negotiated terms that allowed a dismissal on the Negligent Operation of a Motor Vehicle, and a not responsible on the Speeding Violation and the OUI charge. Client was given a twelve month probation period that will allow a dismissal of the charges after one year.
RESULT: Shortest Probation period by law received on OUI, NOT RESPONSIBLE on the speeding ticket, Negligent Operation, DISMISSAL.

July 7th 2010
Shoplifting $100+ by Asportation
According to the security guards at a local department store, Attorney Barabino’s client walked into the store with her sister and approached a display of merchandise. They selected childrens' clothes and shoes, removed the tags, and attempted to conceal the items after removing the tags from the items. The evidence was clear that they committed the act of shoplifting. In addition to the expected testimony of the store security officer, there was videotape of the client and her sister committing the acts. A deal had to be made with the prosecutors and a major concern was any admission to a crime could have immigration consequences. After discussing the matter with the District Attorney, an agreement was made to allow no admission to a crime and simply pay back the money for the items. If client stay out of trouble for six months the case would simply be dismissed. And most importantly, case would be dismissed with no admission to the criminal act.
RESULT: PAY $239.98 AND ADMIT TO NO CRIME WITH NO IMMIGRATION CONSEQUENCES

June 24th 2010
Larceny over $250.00
Police officers responded to Barney of New York in the Back Bay to a report of a shoplifter. Upon arrival, officers spoke to store security who stated that she watched a woman, later identified as Attorney Barabino’s client, walk into Barneys and walk directly into the fitting rooms. Security reported that she took two dresses that were already in the dressing room, placed the two dresses in her pocketbook, and proceeded to leave the store without paying for them. Security believed that she was working with another female who had stolen from Barney’s in the past. The two dresses were valued at nearly $3,685.00. The dresses were given back to Barney's. Client, a Russian immigrant living in New York City, had several concerns about the ramification and consequences of such serious charge. Moreover, the store had client videotaped doing the acts which security had witnessed. Attorney Barabino discussed the matter with the Prosecution several times to fashion a disposition. The result of the discussion were very favorable to Attorney Barabino’s client. She walked into court on the very next court date, paid restitution on the amount of the items, and was did not have to admit to any crime.
RESULT: PAY $3,685.00 TO BARNEY'S OF NEW YORK AND AVOID ADMITTING TO A FELONY OR MISDEMEANOR. NO PROBATION OR IMMIGRATION CONSEQUENCES.

May 13th 2010
Assault and Battery
Client was alleged to have called his pregnant girlfriend to her mother's home to retrieve jewelry that he purchased for her and officially break up the relationship. His soon-to-be ex-girlfriend alleged that he slapped her on the face before he left. She also made other statements that resulted in a questionable accusation. Nonetheless, the police arrested him for domestic assault and battery. Attorney Barabino put his investigator on the case and his investigator interviewed the woman who made these accusations. She decided that she was going to tell the truth and proceeded to sign a sworn statement that supported the Defendant's assertion that he is truly innocent. After answering ready for trial, the case could not proceed as the victim was not present to testify.
RESULT: CASE DISMISSED

May 4th 2010
False Bomb Threat
Disturbing a School Assembly
According to the police report, client/student were in the female bathroom at their school when another girl asked for her lipstick. Once in her hand, the other girl proceeded to write out a specific bomb threat on the wall of the bathroom. As a result of the written threat, the school authorities were notified and took precautionary measures which resulted in a major disruption to the school. The measures that had to be taken included a full evacuation and securing of the building. Local police and fire rescue were called as a result of the threat. Under the joint venture theory of criminal prosecution, the Commonwealth could attempt to convict client just on her limited role in the bathroom. However, more problematic would have been her alleged statements to other students that she was the one who wrote the statement as well. Also, the girl in the bathroom blamed Attorney Barabino's client. Nonetheless, the school proceeded with long term suspension and the police summoned her to a clerk magistrate's hearing. Working with all involved, Attorney Barabino represented the juvenile at the Clerk Magistrate's hearing. Several conditions and obligations were placed for the client and in return the clerk would not formally file the complaint in court. Client never appeared before a judge. The case would therefore never appear on her criminal record.
RESULT: Application for Complaint, NEVER FILED, CASE TO BE DISMISSED

April 29th 2010
Drug, Possession Class B (Cocaine)
Resisting Arrest
According to police, while on patrol in a high-crime area, they noticed a person transfer something to client. The other individual was person of high interest because of unsubstantiated allegations of prior drug dealing. Police asked defendant what he was doing and what was in his hand. He showed police the other hand and after repeated questioning from police he assented to their request and showed them a small baggie of cocaine. Client was irritated and according to police resisted arrest when they attempted to place the cuffs on him. Attorney Barabino challenged the constitutionally of the search. A hearing was scheduled, and the officer testified to what he saw and when he saw it. Attorney Barabino crossed-examined the officer challenging his observations and actions during the arrest. After the hearing and supplemental legal memorandums, the judge ruled that any evidence that was seen after the initial arrest cannot be used at trial, and a dismissal will be the only remedy for the District Attorney. Although the District Attorney seeks to have an appellate court review the judge’s findings, it was inevitable that this case would be dismissed.
RESULT: Motion to Suppress, ALLOWED, CASE TO BE BE DISMISSED

April 29th 2010
Larceny over 250.00
According to the police report, client was caught by store security stealing several items totaling over 250.00 (a felony charge). Client admitted to police her wrongdoing, and the evidence was obvious and glaring. Negotiation with the District Attorney was the only option. However, the District Attorney sought the maximum sentence of two years in the house of correction sentence committed. Committed means that the Commonwealth wanted her to be in jail with no suspended sentence or probation. The probable harness to their recommendation was the result of the client’s prior record of similar offenses with committed jail time. Attorney Barabino took the client before a judge asking for straight probation (administrative). Administrative probation would allow her not to have to meet with a probation officer or need the fulfill any related requirements. After Attorney Barabino explained the client’s background, history and previous road to rehabilitation, and as a result, he decided to accept Attorney Barabino's request for one year of probation---no jail time and no probation requirements.
RESULT: NO TWO YEAR HOUSE OF CORRECTIONS JAIL SENTENCE.

April 6th 2010
Assault and Battery
According to police, there was a call from a despondent female. The female alleged that she went to client's home, and when she was at the home they got into a verbal argument. She told the police that when she went to leave the apartment he grabbed her wrist and twisted it as he escorted her out of the apartment. Attorney Barabino and his client decided there was no disposition other than not-guilty or a dismissal that would be acceptable, since he denied ever using excessive force. After the necessary pre-trial preparation and defense investigation, the case was marked ready for trial, and on the day of trial, the Commonwealth agreed to dismiss client's case against him and at the same time enter a mutually satisfying disposition in a separate case involving the same parties in which the client was the victim.
RESULT: CASE DISMISSED