Recent Cases

July 8th 2009
Negligent Operation of Motor Vehicle
Racing Motor Vehicle by Licensed Operator
Marked Lanes Violation
Speeding in Violation of Special Regulation
According to the State Police report, client was observed driving his Dodge Challenger sideways in heavy traffic, reaching speeds of 85 miles per hour. The officer further stated that client and another vehicle pulled up side by side, slowing down and repeating earlier behavior. After observing continued fishtailing, sideways swerving, and apparent loss of control, the officer charged client with the above charges. Attorney Barabino began negotiating with the District Attorney early in the case, since the act was supposedly witnessed by the officer. After a close examination of the language of the statute regarding Drag Racing, an agreement was made which allowed for the charge of Racing a Motor Vehicle to be simply dismissed, no payment required for civil offenses, and administrative probation for the Negligent Operation of a Motor Vehicle, with assurance of dismissal if no further violations. In addition, no license suspension resulted from client's actions.
RESULT: Racing Motor Vehicle Charge DISMISSED

June 17th 2009
Receiving Stolen Motor Vehicle
Client was charged with receiving a stolen motor vehicle after police made a random stop of the Defendant while he was traveling with friends. The police knew client, as he had been convicted of robbery years ago and other miscellaneous minor offenses. Once the vehicle was stopped, it was determined that it had been stolen and all the parties involved were subsequently arrested. At trial, the Commonwealth was unable to locate a necessary witness and the case was consequentially dismissed.
RESULT: CHARGE DISMISSED

June 2nd 2009
Assault and Battery
Intimidation of a Witness
Client had been charged with Assault and Battery (misdemeanor) and a felony charge of Intimidation of a Witness. According to police and the testimony of client's girlfriend, client waited outside until his girlfriend came to the door. When opened, he pushed her and threw her into a table and a fight ensued. The complainant had injuries and was taken away in an ambulance and seen at the emergency room. During the fight, the District Attorney placed several witnesses on the stand that supported her allegation that client attempted to impede her attempt to call police. After trial, the jury found the defendant guilty of Assault and Battery and Not Guilty of the felony charge.
RESULT: FELONY CHARGE NOT GUILTY

May 13th 2009
Probation Violation/Surrender
Violation of Abuse Prevention Order
Client was alleged to have violated a restraining order with his soon to be ex-wife. The defendant was charged with two separate counts of violation of a restraining order. In addition to being charged with the two separate criminal counts, he was also violating his probation requirement for a separate domestic abuse charge. At the trial, Attorney Barabino had client's wife disqualified as a witness and as a result, both cases were dismissed. After the two cases were dismissed, the defendant's probation officer sought to have him found guilty and committed to a house of correction. Attorney Barabino moved for a hearing on probation, which was organized. After the hearing, the Defendant was re-instated on his same terms, no additional consequences and no jail time.
RESULT: BOTH CASES DISMISSED, PROBATION REINSTATED WITH NO ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS

April 1st 2009
Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon on a Person over Sixty (60)
Client was alleged to be harassing her grandmother for money. The grandmother pushed client out of her bedroom, but client attempted to force her way into the bedroom until the door smacked the accuser in the breast, causing her discomfort in part, because she had just had surgery. The accuser had been on the phone with another family member, and that family member called 911 to report the incident. The parties explained to police what occurred and defendant admitted to pushing the door into the accuser. At trial, the defendant's grandmother and mother testified against her, but the determination by a judge, applying the facts to the charge, issued a verdict of not guilty.
RESULT: NOT GUILTY

February 10th 2009
Drug, Possession to Distribute Class B
Drug, Possession to Distribute Class C
Speeding
Client was alleged to be speeding when Massachusetts State Police pulled her over. Client admitted that she had an open case for drug distribution and was eventually asked to exit her vehicle. After she was asked to exit her vehicle, the State Trooper discovered a zippered bag that had more than a ten twist of cocaine. After she was arrested, she was brought to the State Police barracks where a female trooper discovered that she had several bags of heroin in her vagina. Attorney Barabino sought a dismissal at the suppression date and his request was allowed.
RESULT: Motion to Suppress, ALLOWED. CASE DISMISSED.

February 3rd 2009
Leave the Scene of Property Damage
Negligent Operation of Motor Vehicle
Client was informed by summons that his car was witnessed to be Leaving the Scene of Property damage of a motor vehicle and client did not stop to provide his personal information. As a result, he was charged with the above referenced crimes. The only identification made of the driver was by a bar owner who merely confirmed the owner of the car but not the defendant himself. At trial, the Commonwealth did not have the necessary witness, and the case was dismissed upon request by Attorney Barabino.
RESULT: CASE DISMISSED

January 16th 2009
Vandalize Property
Tagging
Vandalize Property
Tagging
Client was nationally known as someone who "tags". A tagger is someone who spray paints their name or "sign" on various items such as buildings, cars, bridges, etc. The Commonwealth knew they had someone who had been known to tag in several states and were eager to prosecute. However, their eagerness did not transform into evidence. The case was placed for both a Motion to Dismiss and trial. Fortunately, the Motion to Dismiss was successful and the client's case was dismissed.
RESULT: MOTION TO DISMISS ALLOWED, CASE DISMISSED