» Assault and Battery

Assault and Battery w/Dangerous Weapon, DISMISSED

June 12th 2014
Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon
A married insurance professional was suffering some emotional struggles and called police to admit to a criminal act. Upon admitting the act over a recorded telephone call, police went to the home. Upon arrival, police realized that client was intoxicated and emotionally distraught. The case could not be proven without the wife’s testimony and with an expectation that she would not be forced to testify, Attorney Barabino placed the matter on for trial. At trial, the seasoned District Attorney, well versed in the rules of evidence, knew there was simply insufficient evidence to prosecute the case with the wife, as she asserted her marital privilege. Attorney Barabino requested that the matter be dismissed, which the court allowed. Case dismissed.
RESULT: Assault and Battery w/Dangerous Weapon, DISMISSED.

Assault and Battery, DISMISSED, NO ADMISSION OF WRONGDOING, NO COSTS, NO FEES, NO OBLIGATIONS, NO COMMITMENTS

May 27th 2014
Assault and Battery
A hard working delivery driver was accused of assaulting his girlfriend. According to police, he pushed her onto the couch, as he wanted her out of his home. When police arrived, he denied these allegations and he was arrested. Attorney Barabino was retained and represented the matter. At the day of trial, the District Attorney was able to speak to the complainant and simply agreed to stop the prosecution with a general continuance.
RESULT: DISMISSED as a General Continuance in 6 Months. NO ADMISSION OF WRONGDOING, NO COSTS, FEES, OBLIGATIONS, OR COMMITMENTS.

Assault and Battery, DISMISSED, ALLOWED TO APPLY FOR LTC CARD AGAIN WITHOUT DELAY

May 4th 2014
Assault and Battery
A hard working father, employee, and candidate for the police academy was arrested for fighting with his brother. Police charged client with assault and battery. Mandatory disqualification of carrying a firearm if convicted, among many other consequences such as job termination, refusal to enter school property, and possibly jail time. During the case, the District Attorney sought to summon potentially damaging medical records into the court. Fortunately, after a complicated hearing attempt to obtain those records, the Commonwealth choose a compromise, which resulted in a trial date set and a dismissal on that trial date. As agreed, a dismissal entered on the trial date. Case Dismissed. Client can reapply for License to Carry Concealed Permit (LTC) card right away.
RESULT: Charge of Assault and Battery, DISMISSED. Client CAN reapply for License to Carry Concealed Permit (LTC) card, right away.

Resisting Arrest, NO JAIL TIME, Assault and Battery on a Police Officer, DISMISSED

December 17th 2013
Resisting Arrest
Assault and Battery on a Police Office
Client, a hairdresser, had accumulated several criminal complaints against her, alleging she had committed several different crimes. In each case, the police alleged that the defendant was unruly and offensive to police when they arrived to respond to the 911 emergency calls. On one occasion, the defendant went into her home and refused to leave. When police asked her to step outside she, according to Police, pushed the officer from behind and used some profanity. When police began to arrest her, they claimed she required three cops to arrest her due to her violent nature and actions. Attorney Barabino and the defendant were comfortable in having a jury decide whether she intended to commit Assault and Battery on an Police Officer. However, at the trial date, it was unnecessary as the District Attorney simply dismissed the charge. Probation was allowed on the remaining charges and no jail time as a result.
RESULT: Assault and Battery on a Police Officer, DISMISSED. NO JAIL TIME ON OTHER CHARGE, RELEASED FROM CUSTODY.

Malicious Destruction of Property, Assault and Battery, MOTION TO SUPPRESS ALLOWED, CASE DISMISSED AT TRIAL

December 5th 2013
Malicious Destruction of Property
Malicious Destruction of Property
Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon
The defendant was at his home when police came and began an investigation into an allegation that he shot an elderly man with a BB gun, twice. When police interviewed the mother of defendant she declared that they were just out on the roof of their home shooting. Police recovered the BB gun and defendant and his mother made statements that were not helpful. Moreover, police had received other complaints of a similar nature the day before from this location, relating to the gun. A Motion to Suppress the statements made by the defendant's was filed. The judge allowed the defense's motion. After nearly a year, the case came to trial, and the limited evidence resulted in a full dismissal.
RESULT: Motion to Suppress Statements, ALLOWED, CASE DISMISSED AT TRIAL.

Assault and Battery, CROSS COMPLAINT FILED, CASE DISMISSED IN ONE YEAR, NO ADMISSION OF ANY EVIDENCE OR WRONGDOING, NO FEES, NO FINES

December 3rd 2013
Assault and Battery
Client was a young, educated artist from India who came to the United States with her new husband. Shortly after the marriage, the husband made frequent and repeated monetary demands of the defendant and her family. He alleged that the demands were simply an extension of the dowry, or gift giving, in their country's custom. However, when she refused to provide more gifts, he filed for divorce and slammed her with a restraining order. He also claimed that she assaulted and battered him. Then he made attempts to obtain an abused spouse/domestic violence visa from law enforcement, which would have accelerated his own green card application. Then he obtained a restraining order after providing the court with a summary of private conversations that the defendant had with her family and were (accidentally) recorded by her while he was at work. Attorney Barabino was retained after the defendant discharged her prior attorney. When Attorney Barabino took over the case, he restarted the case from its beginning. He hired a forensic computer expert to examine the contents of the unconsented recordings. At the same time, he filed a Criminal Cross Complaint against the alleged victim. Time was of the essence since defendant was on a time sensitive schedule, which could have resulted in her being deported prior to her case being brought to trial. Negotiations resulted in an agreement for a postponed dismissal of the charge. No immigration consequences as well for defendant.
RESULT: Cross Complaint FILED, CASE DISMISSED in One Year, NO ADMISSION OF ANY EVIDENCE OR WRONGDOING, NO FEES, NO FINES.

Assault and Battery, DISMISSED, Illegal Drug Distribution, DISMISSED

August 21nd 2012
Assault and Battery Chapter 265 Section 15?
Possession to Distribute Class “D” Chapter 94C Section 32(c)
Client was a landscaper who was in warrant status as a result of not reporting to his probation officer. Moreover, he was charged with new crimes of Assault and Battery and Distributing Class “D” (marijuana). Attorney Barabino brought to the charges straight to trial---little time to waste since there would be consequences from his probation officer if he was convicted of new charges. At trial, the Commonwealth was unable to secure the necessary witnesses to present their evidence, and the Assault and Battery was dismissed. Attorney Barabino next filed what is called waiver of jury to allow the judge to hear the remaining evidence for distribution. Once that was complete, the District Attorney simply assented that their probability of securing a verdict was low—so low that they agreed to dismiss the distribution charge in its entirety.
RESULT: Assault and Battery Charge DISMISSED. Distribution Charge DISMISSED.

Assault and Battery, DISMISSED

August 2nd 2012
Assault and Battery Chapter 265 Section 15
According to police, client and boyfriend had called police twice in one night. The first time police spoke with both the client and her boyfriend and left the home---assured that no further commotion would occur. When police were called to the home a second time, they noticed that the boyfriend had marks and scraps that were not visible before. The police then made inquiry to the client and after doing so were satisfied that she was the aggressor. As a result, they charged her with assault and battery. As a non-citizen, a dismissal was essential and an acquittal had to be obtained. At trial, the boyfriend became “unavailable” as a result of a Fifth Amendment hearing, ultimately resulting in a dismissal of the charge.
RESULT: Fifth Amendment of Witness at Trial Results in Assault and Battery Charge DISMISSED

Assault and Battery, Vandalism, BOTH CHARGES DISMISSED

July 18th 2012
Assault and Battery
Vandalize Property
Client, a former NHL Player and Vietnam War veteran, was charged with assault and battery and vandalizing property. According to the police report, a young boy in the neighborhood was acting unruly and assaultive towards other young boys and girls. Client, witnessing this dangerous behavior, took action by restraining the young boy—leaving a small mark and (possibly) ripping his shirt. Fortunately, a seasoned and experienced district attorney was assigned to the case, who after speaking and doing her own investigation, determined that the actions of defendant should not be criminally prosecuted---the case was dismissed.
RESULT: BOTH CHARGES DISMISSED.

Assault and Battery, Breaking and Entering, Vandalizing Property, Intimidation of a Witness, Assault with a Dangerous Weapon, FIVE OUT OF SIX CHARGES DROPPED, MISDEMEANOR DISMISSAL

May 24th 2012
Assault and Battery Chapter 265 Section 15?
Breaking and Entering in the Nighttime for Felony Chapter 266 Section 16
Vandalize Property Chapter 266 Section 126A
Vandalize Property Chapter 266 Section 126A
Intimidation of a Witness Chapter 268 Section 13b
Assault with a Dangerous Weapon Chapter 265 Section 15B
Client was a laid off manufacturing employee who had a rocky relationship with his daughter’s mother. According to police and his police record, client has been accused of assaulting her in the past. In fact, she and her child were placed in a residential location paid for via the Commonwealth based on her alleged fear of client. On this occasion, daughter's mother claimed that client was able to locate her from an unknown source and when he knocked on her door he pushed himself in the room. Once inside the room, he held her down on the bed and punched her twice in the face. After this struggle, the report stated that he broke two telephones and assaulted her child. Once over, he left the premises and she, exhausted and out of breath, called 911. She informed the police of what had occurred and they placed a warrant out for client's arrest. Once arrested, a separate hearing was requested from the District Attorney’s office called a 58A. The purpose of the 58A was to see if bail should even be a consideration in this case. The District Attorney was successful and client was detained until trial. Attorney Barabino and his client had one alternative for the District Attorney to consider. That was drop all the charges or fill in the jury box. No deal was reached. Defense knew that what alleged victims had told police could be defended in court and there was another story to be told. At the day of trial, Attorney Barabino and his client rejected all offers for a deal. However, as the trial was moments away from beginning, there was one offer client could not say no too. The offer was to drop five of the six charges in their entirety and the one charge of assault and battery to continue without a finding, which simply means the if client completes the term of probation the one charge will be dismissed.
RESULT: FIVE OUT OF SIX CHARGES DROPPED. CONDITIONAL DISMISSAL OF MISDEMEANOR.