» Attorney Barabino

June 28^th 2013
Possession of Class “A” Heroin
Client was seen purchasing drugs with another female. Once police saw this activity they noticed and observed even more incriminating behavior. They approached the vehicle client and friend were in, and when they did the police saw heroin in plain view in her hand. Also within plain were items used to inject heroin. Client had desire to bring case to closure as quickly as possible, so Attorney Barabino negotiated a deal with the District Attorney that allowed her a one-year probation period with no guilty finding. In the end, the case would be dismissed after one year and client did not have to appear again in court as she was given administrative probation and did not have to have any drug testing.
RESULT: NO DRUG TESTING, NO FURTHER COURT DATES OR PROBATION RESTRICTIONS, NO FINDING OF GUILT

June 18^th 2013
Firearm on School Grounds, Carrying Chapter 269 Section 10(j)
Client, a building contractor, was found armed with a loaded .380 weapon on his person at a local university. Although licensed to carry the firearm, state law forbids such carrying without specific written permission from the campus police department, which he did not have. As a result, client was charged with the above offense. Client’s main concern was how a potential conviction could impact his license to carry in the future. After several court appearances, a Motion to Dismiss and a Motion to Suppress were filed, and a hearing was scheduled. On the day of the hearing and after all the parties discussed the issues, a resolution of simply dismissing the case after six months of unsupervised probation would close the matter.
RESULT: Motion to Suppress FILED, Deal Made, Six Months of Probation, CASE DISMISSED.

June 12^th 2013
Drug, Possession to Distribute Class B Chapter 94C Section 32A (a)
Client was a retired US Air Force officer with over twenty year of service. Client had been attempting to assist his girlfriend’s daughter in her struggle with drug addiction. Client and girlfriend were making attempts to detoxify daughter and purchased drugs so they could monitor her detoxification. While they were picking her up at a drug house, police surprised the group and arrested all three. The police based their arrest on the High Crime Area where they were, statements made, and an admission of drugs in their possession and other factors. Despite the reasons for being there, the police were not interested in any reduction of the charge. Attorney Barabino sought a full evidentiary hearing to challenge the constitutionally of the arrest. Today, the court issued their legal analysis indicating that Attorney Barabino’s argument was correct and that the drugs could not be used in the prosecution of the case---meaning the drugs seized were “suppressed”, or thrown out. Case Dismissed.
RESULT: Motion to Suppress ALLOWED, CASE DISMISSED.

May 16^th 2013
Firearm Carrying with Ammunition
Drug, Possession to Distribute
Client was a high school student who was being watched by the Lynn Gang Task Force. According the police, they saw client speaking with a high-ranking gang member who himself had been convicted of gun charges. Moments later, they arrested client with a Loaded .380 Handgun in his pocket and seventeen ecstasy pills. He was charged with a number of offenses, including possession of a loaded firearm and drug distribution. Initially, the young man was charged as a juvenile, but soon after those charges were dismissed and he was recharged under the Youthful Offender Law. Under the Youthful Offender Law, he could be sentenced to state prison. Client was released from custody after posting a substantial bail. After nearly three years of various hearings, motions, and challenges to the evidence, the case moved closer to trial. Attorney Barabino suppressed one piece of evidence, which prevented the Commonwealth from using the Defendant's statement that he was a member of the “CRIPS”. Once that was decided, a trial date was scheduled. At the trial date, all the Commonwealth's experts and the defense experts appeared as well as other witnesses. However, moments prior to the jury being selected, a deal was made that allowed client not to serve any jail time. Defendant was placed on a suspended sentence with no jail time served. The drugs had been excluded by agreement as they had been tainted by the “Dookham drug scandal”, so the drug charge was dismissed.
RESULT: After 1st Trial, Motion to Suppress, ALLOWED. NO JAIL TIME. Drug Distribution, DISMISSED.

May 8^th 2013
Malicious Destruction of Property Chapter
Malicious Destruction of Property Chapter
Client, a junior in high school, faced two potential complaints of Malicious Destruction of Property Over $250.00. The police alleged that client became angry and upset about being blamed for something he was not involved in. When client became angry, it was alleged that he went to a young woman’s home and threw large rocks at the home, damaging the foundation. Moreover, it was alleged that he damaged the motor vehicle at that same home, with a cost of over $250.00. Both charges are felonies. Today, at the clerk's hearing, Attorney Barabino persuaded the assistant clerk magistrate, with the assent of cooperative, professional, and understanding law enforcement, to hold the complaint open for ninety days. As long as client performed restitution, the case would be dismissed without ever appearing on client's criminal record.
RESULT: Application for Complaint, DISMISSED.

April 29th 2013
Motion to Seal Record Chapter
Attorney Barabino persuaded the judge to seal all records of this case. As a matter of law, client may now truthfully answer on any job application that he has never been arrested for, or charged with, any crime.
RESULT: Petition to Seal, ALLOWED.

March 20^th 2013
Possession of Class “A” Heroin Chapter 94C Section 34
Client was a very pleasant young woman from a great family. However, unknown to her family she had developed an addiction to heroin—a very powerful one for that matter. Attorney Barabino filed a rather obscure and rarely used IIIE statute. Under IIIE, if the Defendant acknowledges their addiction, enters and completes rehabilitation, the charge against them will be dropped. The court allowed the motion to be filed nearly a year ago and after one year of negative drug screens provided to the court, the case against the client was dismissed.
RESULT: Motion to Dismiss, ALLOWED, CASE DISMISSED.

March 5^th 2013
Disturbing the Peace Chapter 272 Section 53
Dangerous Weapon, Carry, Subsequent Offense Chapter 269 Section 10(B) & (D)
Client was a hard working electrician. He was charged with Disturbing the Peace and Possession of a Dangerous Weapon, Subsequent Offense. The second charge was required to be prosecuted in Superior Court and State Prison was mandatory upon conviction. However, the District Attorney allowed the case to remain in District Court and prosecuted it as a first offense. Attorney Barabino filed a Motion to Dismiss the charges in their entirety. The motion, complete with a lengthy memorandum of law and supporting affidavit, was provided to the court and a hearing was scheduled. After the motion, the court agreed that the motion should be allowed and the case dismissed. The District Attorney simply agreed to dismiss the Disturbing the Peace charge after the hearing.
RESULT: Motion to Dismiss ALLOWED, CASE DISMISSED.