» Attorney Barabino

Shoplifting, PAYMENT OF RESTITUTION IN FULL, NO COMPLAINT ISSUED AGAINST CLIENT, CLEAN RECORD

July 27th 2015
Shoplifting By Asportation By Recording False Value
Shoplifting By Asportation over 100
Client was a young adult and senior with unlimited potential. According to police, he made a massive reduction in the cost of items via a friend who was working as a cashier. The police, professional and respectful, allowed this matter to heard at a clerk magistrate's hearing. Attorney Barabino prepared details and background of client and reached out to people involved. At the hearing, all parties were heard and the opportunity to pay back the money was sufficient to have no complaint issue. Record of names remains fully intact. Clean records remains.
RESULT: PAYMENT OF RESTITUTION IN FULL, NO COMPLAINT ISSUED AGAINST CLIENT, CLEAN RECORD Remains Fully Intact.

Failure to Register, CONDITIONAL DISMISSAL

June 24th 2015
Failure to Register as a Sex Offender
Client made several mistakes nearly ten years prior. Those mistakes led him to be listed as a sex offender, with all the requirements of registration. He had several children and was a law abiding person working many hours to maintain stability for his family. According to police, he made mistakes on his registration and was charged with failure to register as a sex offender. The investigation into defendant was very sophisticated and intensive. The police tracked the defendant to locations outside of his hometown and took photographs. Police applied for an received a search warrant for a GPS tracking device for his motor vehicle. Police also installed a hidden motion detector on a telephone pole at a fixed location, among conducting other investigative techniques. They also secured an videotaped admission from the defendant. After an exhaustive review of the thousands of pieces of evidence, Attorney Barabino filed a motion to suppress, with a lengthy memorandum of law. On that day, prior to the hearing, the judge, who would also allow defendant to admit to the allegation, took an agreed tender that if defendant stays out of legal trouble for about a year and one half, the charge would be dismissed. This disposition is called a Continued Without a Finding or “CWOF”. The probation is administrative, so client does not have to appear at the probation department.
RESULT: Motion to Dismiss, FILED, PLEA Entered and if Abides by Probation Terms Case will be DISMISSED.

Class "D" Intent to Distribute, DISMISSED, Conspiracy, DISMISSED

May 4th 2015
Drug, Possession Class D (Weed), Distribute
Conspiracy to Violate Drug Law
According to police, while on patrol in a high-crime area, they noticed what they believed to be a drug transaction. They produced a lengthy police report, which detailed their observations. The officers based their actions on a hunch and that hunch proved to be correct. An attempt to dismiss the case suppressing evidence as an illegal search was surprisingly unsuccessful. However, Attorney Barabino and client moved on. After viewing the scene with client, reviewing the evidence in the possession of the government, and preparing witnesses, a trial date was set. The government had an admission of wrongdoing from the defendant, a quarter pound of weed (individually bagged and others empty bags), a scale, and a little more than two hundred dollars as evidence. Despite appearing ready at the first trial date, the Commonwealth was not ready. As a sanction, the judge said at the next date they must appear ready. On the second date, they were unable to answer ready and the judge agreed to dismiss the case.
RESULT: Class “D” Intent to Distribute, DISMISSED, Conspiracy DISMISSED.

Motion to Suppress Identification, ALLOWED

March 18th 2015
Larceny by Single Scheme
Credit Card False over 250
Identity Fraud
Client was a polite, bright young man who had a drug problem. According to police, he was involved in several schemes to defraud people. First, gaining access to their credit cards and eventually using those credit cards for exorbitant purchases. Police investigated and made an identification of his co-defendant. Attorney Barabino sought an evidentiary hearing, filing a motion with the court with a supporting legal memorandum outlining the reasons why the court should not permit the “I.D.” to be allowed, since it was suggestive. The court agreed. The motion to exclude the ‘I.D.” was allowed and little evidence remained in the case for the prosecution. After nearly a year of preparation, the case resulted in a dismissal.
RESULT: Motion to Suppress Identification, ALLOWED. CASE DISMISSED.

Motion to Suppress, PARTIALLY ALLOWED, CASE DISMISSED

March 5th 2015
Unarmed Robbery
Assault and Battery
Client was charged with Unarmed Robbery and Assault and Battery. According to police, a man called police and said three people just beat him up and robbed him. Unfortunately for defendant and two friends, they had been walking down the street from a party just a few blocks away. Initially, police found money in their pockets similar to what had been taken, blood on one person's shirt, and positive identification from the victim. However, soon it became clear that they were a victim themselves as a large party of similar looking people had just concluded. There was no blood and the money was simply their own. Nevertheless, the case proceeded through the court system. The police testified at a hearing that the young men were all friendly and respectful. Prior to trial, a challenge by Attorney Barabino and his two co-defendant lawyers petitioned to Suppress the Identification—as it was simply the wrong one---or a misidentification. Ultimately, that motion was partially allowed and the District Attorney elected to dismiss all charges. Case dismissed.
RESULT: Motion to Suppress, ALLOWED (In Part), Case DISMISSED.

Drug Possession, MOTION TO SUPPRESS ALL EVIDENCE ALLOWED, CASE DISMISSED

December 2nd 2014
Possession to Distribute Class D
Client was a passenger driving in a motor vehicle with his friends. They were also under the eye of a special response unit or a specialized anti-drugs investigation unit. That unit converged on the vehicle and confiscated nearly 100 grams of marijuana, scales, ledgers for recording transactions, and over $1000 in cash. Attorney Barabino requested a challenge to the motor vehicle stop via a Motion to Suppress evidence. Once that motion, affidavits, and memorandum of law were filed, the police were brought into court for a hearing. The court issued a decision after a month’s wait indicating that the evidence should be thrown out. As a result, the case will be dismissed.
RESULT: Motion to Suppress All Evidence, ALLOWED. CASE DISMISSED.

Assault w/ a Dangerous Weapon, NO CRIMINAL COMPLAINT ISSUED

October 17th 2014
Assault with a Dangerous Weapon
Client was a hardworking cleaner with three children. She had a boyfriend who had a hard time letting go of their relationship and accused her of waving a knife at him. The police performed a thorough investigation, which was helpful to client. A Clerk's Hearing was ordered and at the hearing Clerk declined to issue the complaint. Although the hearing lasted fifteen minutes or less, Attorney Barabino and client had prepared nearly an entire day's worth of effort collecting documents and interviewing witnesses. In the end, the Complaint did not issue.
RESULT: NO CRIMINAL COMPLAINT ISSUED.

Sex Offense, LEVEL III REDUCED TO LEVEL II.   

October 8th 2014
The Sex Offender Registry Board (SORB) categorized client, a young incarcerated man, as a Level III Sex Offender. The Level III status is devastating to the offender, since it requires active public notification of wherever the offender lives and employs. In the present case, Attorney Barabino had assembled all the relevant documentation for presentation to the SORB Board. After careful consideration, it was assumed that the most impactful and meaningful way to present the case of the offender was for him to testify, which he did with Attorney Barabino. After several weeks of waiting for the written decision, all the parties were notified that client was reduced to a LEVEL II status--thereby not requiring public notification of his crimes.
RESULT: LEVEL III SEX OFFENDER STATUS REDUCED TO LEVEL II.

Larceny Charges, Shoplifting, NO FELONY CONVICTION, CONDITIONAL ADMINISTRATIVE PROBATION ALLOWED

September 25th 2014
Larceny over $250.00
Larceny over $250.00
Larceny over $250.00
Shoplifting
Larceny under $250.00
Larceny under $250.00
Client was pursuing his Masters in Business Administration (MBA) out of state. Prior to him enrolling in his program, he had been employed at Nordstrom’s department store. While employed at the store, he became involved with several others in taking items from the store that didn’t belong to them. The arrangement was complex, so the investigation was consequentially extensive and detailed. The charges were, in part, felonies, which was simply unacceptable for someone who intended to have a future as a professional. The District Attorney sought guilty convictions. Attorney Barabino brought the matter before a judge and the judge agreed with Attorney Barabino. Client convictions would be dismissed if defendant were to pay back the $4800.00 within eighteen months. Also, the court allowed defendant's probation to be administrative so he would not have to physically appear in the courthouse and could leave to attend his out of state MBA program.
RESULT: NO FELONY CONVICTION, Upon Completion of Probation, ADMINISTRATIVE PROBATION ALLOWED.

OUI-liquor, NOT GUILTY VERDICT, LICENSE REINSTATED

August 19th 2014
OUI - Liquor or .08%
Client was a hard working supermarket manager. After having a few drinks after work one day, he was returned home to discover a DWI/Roadblock. The State Police noticed that he had glassy red eyes, admitted to consuming two drinks, slurred his speech, and was very unsteady on his feet. After an unsuccessful performance on his field sobriety test, he was arrested. Client took the stand in his own defense. A clear timeline and understanding of his natural inability to perform the test was presented, and an attentive jury returned a verdict of not guilty. Motion to reinstate client’s license, allowed.
RESULT: Jury returns verdict of NOT GUILTY, Motion to reinstate license, ALLOWED.