Recent Cases

February 12, 2025
Leaving the Scene of Property Damage
Client was all around easy going responsible person who crashed into another vehicle late one evening. He pulled over to a safe area and there was some confusion when police came. In the end, the police cited him for leaving the scene of property damage. He missed his magistrate hearing and was formally charged with the crime. Attorney Barabino began reviewing the matter and after interviewing client and reviewing the scene of the accident with him determined that client would have a strong likelihood of success at trial. However, Attorney Barabino uncovered some procedural oversights in the charging process which was the basis to draft a motion to dismiss. A motion was filed, with a memorandum, affidavits and exhibits was presented to the court. After a hearing, the judge took the matter under advisement. Today, the court formally discharged client as judge determined that the case should be dismissed.
RESULT: Motion to Dismissed, ALLOWED, Case DISMISSED.

February 5, 2025
Permitting an Unlicensed Operator
Client was a member of a large landscaping company who was charged with permitting an unlicensed operator. Client was called to the scene of an accident of a fellow employee and took a leadership role in facilitating removal of the vehicle at the accident scene. Police determined that the fellow employee was without a license and based on a variety of factors the police charged client with permitting unlicensed operation. Attorney Barabino immediately had client file the citation with the court within 4-day time limited to permit a magistrate hearing to review the matter. The hearing date was granted, and a 6-page legal memorandum was prepared in defense of the charge. At the hearing, the magistrate did not issue the complaint.
RESULT: Memorandum Filed, Magistrate Does Not Issue Complaint, No Record

January 23, 2025
Leaving the Scene of Property Damage
Client was a Marine accused of hitting a tree with his car and driving away. Client was arraigned and Attorney Barabino provided a great deal of documentation to the Court and the Assistant District Attorney on why the case should not move forward. The Assistant District Attorney agreed with Attorney Barabino that there were facts questioning the validity of the charge. Client happily agreed to take a four-hour Brains at Risk class in exchange for his case being left open for six months with no admission of wrongdoing. After these six months pass, his case will be dismissed.
RESULT: NO admission of wrongdoing. Case to be dismissed in six months after client takes a class. NO conviction, fine, or license suspension.

January 22, 2025
Operating on a Suspended License
Operating an Uninsured Motor Vehicle
Operating an Unregistered Motor Vehicle
Number Plate Violation
Unregistered Motor Vehicle
Motorcycle Helmet Violation
Client was an established professional who for a variety of reasons made a variety of oversights pertaining to his motorcycle. If arraigned, Client would have a criminal record. For his professional career, the goal was to avoid this. With Attorney Barabino’s support and guidance, great efforts were taken to remedy each infraction so Attorney Barabino could ask the Court for a dismissal prior to arraignment. This included Client buying a new helmet and registering and insuring his vehicle. Attorney Barabino helped client prepare an affidavit affirming that he took these steps and this was submitted to the Court along with the supporting documentation. On the scheduled day of arraignment, Attorney Barabino requested a dismissal, prior to the arraignment. The attending Assistant District Attorney acknowledged Client and Attorney Barabino’s hard work and agreed. All charges dismissed prior to arraignment and motor vehicle violations are not responsible.
RESULT: All charges DISMISSED prior to arraignment. Client has NO criminal record. No fines and fees

January 7, 2025
Threats to Commit a Crime
Client was a wonderfully pleasant woman who was charged with threatening her mother. Client had had a troubled relationship with her mother who lived with her. The mother made allegations of threats against Client. Client went unrepresented to a magistrate hearing and the complaint issued against client. The complaint issued. Then, Client hired Attorney Barabino and judge allowed a motion for pre-trial diversion which would avoid an arraignment, and she entered therapy. However, she had a family loss and could not comply with the requirements of diversion. As a result, client was arraigned, and we accepted nothing accept dismissal. As a result, a trial date was requested and after the 2^nd trial date, a dismissal was entered.
RESULT: Dismissed At Trial.

January 3, 2025
OUI 2^nd Offense
Negligent Operation of a MV
Expired Registration
Client was all around super pleasant hardworking father who was charged with a 2^nd offense operating under the influence of alcohol, negligent operation of a motor vehicle and expired registration. According to police, client was driving on the highway when a concerned motorist reported client as likely intoxicated. Police investigated and found client parked at a gas station with the vehicle running and a missing tire. Client admitted to police that he was intoxicated and unable to responsibility drive. Client agreed to the breathalyzer and was double the legal limit. Client also had a prior offense from over ten years ago. After a full review with client, we decided to seek a tender of plea. The district attorney sought a guilty conviction with a suspended jail sentence, two-year loss of license. On a plea, the judge declined to the Governments recommendation and agreed with Attorney Barabino that the case should be charged as a first offender, not a second offender, and also given a continuation without a finding (CWOF) and not a guilty which means the charge will be dismissed after a year of probation and 1^st Offender program, not the 2-week impatient program requested by the government. The Commonwealth also agreed to dismiss the remaining charges.
RESULT: 2^nd Offense OUI, reduced to 1^st Offense, Negligent Operation and Failure to Registration DISMISSED.

December 23, 2024
Kidnapping
Domestic Assault and Battery
Client was a young woman studying at a prestigious local college who had a tumultuous relationship with her boyfriend. Police alleged that Client locked him in his room and struck him. Client retained Attorney Barabino who immediately filed a motion to preserve electronic evidence which included key video, audio, and cell phone materials. After evaluating the case with Client, Attorney Barabino felt confident it would resolve and resolve favorably. Because of the charges, Client’s student visa was revoked so a goal was set to resolve the case in Client’s favor as quickly and efficiently as possible. That goal was achieved when Attorney Barabino was able to get trial viability and trial dates scheduled fast. At the trial viability date, which occurred this day, the Commonwealth acknowledged the insufficiency of the evidence against Client by moving to dismiss the charges.
RESULT: All charges DISMISSED. Client has NO RECORD. Client’s visa expected to be REINSTATED.

December 19, 2024
Assault and Battery
Client was a software engineer who was charged with assault and battery. According to the police report, client had had a female friend living with him when they had a late-night argument. The argument escalated into physical contact result in some minor marks on both client and the female friend. Each had clear and distinct stories about what had taken place that resulted in the police presence. Also, both client and other party each called police seeking law enforcement arrive to the home to assistance. The female party asked to be taken to the hospital which police facilitated. Normally, in situations like this, someone is nearly always taken in custody and charged the next day in court. However, in this case, the police exercised generous restraint and did not arrest either party. They filed for a clerk magistrate hearing and charged both parties. At the hearing, there was an agreement that probable cause for the charge does not exist, and the case was dismissed at the magistrate level, meaning no record of any criminal allegation.
Result: Cross Complaints Result in No Probable Cause.