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.