» Attorney

Leaving the Scene of Property Damage, DISMISSED

April 2nd 2013
Leave Scene of Property Damage Chapter 90, Section 24 (2)(a)
Client was a father and hardworking employee of the US Postal Service. According to police, he drove his vehicle in an erratic manner causing an accident. After the accident, they alleged that Defendant drove away without giving his information to the other driver as required by law. After consultation and review Attorney Barabino and client sought a trial date with the expectation that a not guilty verdict would be the result. However, when the accuser failed to show up for trial, Attorney Barabino simply requested that the matter be dismissed, to which the judge agreed. Case Dismissed.
RESULT: Leaving the Scene of Property Damage, DISMISSED.

Possession of Heroin, MOTION TO DISMISS ALLOWED, CASE DISMISSED

March 20th 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.

Civil Offenses, License Suspended, Leave Scene of Property Damage, ALL CRIMINAL AND CIVIL CHARGES DISMISSED

December 13th 2012
Yield at Intersection, Fail Chapter 89 Section 8
License Suspended, Operating Motor Vehicle with c90 §23
Leave Scene of Property Damage Chapter 90, Section 24 (2)(a)
Use of Motor Vehicle Without Authority Chapter 90, Section 24 (2)(a)
Client was a heavy machinery operator who was charged with multiple criminal and civil driving offenses. According to police, client drove into another vehicle and both motor vehicles were destroyed. Client had a suspended license for drinking and driving and had been charged prior to the incident in question. A guilty conviction after trial would have almost certainly meant jail time. The entire case hinged on an obvious identification flaw, and the Commonwealth admitted that flaw at the day of trial. As a result, they offered to dismiss nearly all the charges if client would admit to a lenient penalty on one of the charges. Client stood fast and refused the generous offer. In the end, the Commonwealth simply dismissed the entire case.
RESULT: ALL CRIMINAL AND CIVIL CHARGES DISMISSED.

Attempt to Commit Crime, NOT GUILTY, Disorderly Conduct, CHARGE FILED FOR A PERIOD OF TWO MONTHS

October 9th 2012
Attempt to Commit Crime Chapter 274 Section 6
Disorderly Conduct Chapter 272 Section 53
Client, a retired airlines employee, was charged with attempting to commit a crime and disorderly conduct. According to police, client had entered the hallway of an apartment building and repeatedly struck the door with her foot. The occupant watched this occur through her peephole and after increased concern, called police. Police then stopped the Defendant down the street from the apartment complex. When interviewed by them, client gave conflicting accounts of what occurred and she was arrested for attempting to break in to the apartment and disorderly conduct. At trial, the District Attorney attempted to modify the complaint to reflect a subsequent charge of disorderly conduct since she had been convicted before this date in a separate incident. The judge denied that request and the client ultimately passed no time in jail for that charge. After trial, the evidence of the witnesses failed to support a charge of breaking and entering and the client was acquitted.
RESULT: NOT-GUILTY of Attempt to Commit a Crime Charge, Disorderly Conduct Charge FILED for a period of two Months.

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.

Abuse Prevention Order, DISMISSED ON THE DAY OF TRIAL

March 1st 2012
Abuse Prevention Order Chapter 209A
Client was a young man and father that was on a three year suspended sentence in New Hampshire for another crime. If he was convicted on the above offense of violating a restraining order, he would not only be charged for his crime in Massachusetts but would also serve a three year sentence in New Hampshire. According to the police, client was seen leaving a restricted area that he was ordered to stay away from. At trial, Attorney Barabino requested the court appoint an attorney to investigate if the complainant was lying to police. At the conclusion of the hearing, the complainant was required not to testify, leaving the Commonwealth with only one option---to dismiss the case.
RESULT: Restraining Order Charge DISMISSED ON THE DAY OF TRIAL.

Second Offense OUI, Child Endangerment, DISMISSED, MOTION TO DISMISS ALLOWED, NO JAIL TIME ON SECOND OFFENSE

February 17th 2012
2nd OFFENSE OUI- Liquor or .08%
Child Endangerment with Operating Under the Influence
Client was an employee with the Department of Defense. He was charged with Reckless Endangerment of a Child and Operating Under the Influence of Alcohol Second Offense. According to the police, the client's ex-wife received a call from client that he was intoxicated and driving around with her child. She became frantic and searched for client. When she located him, she argued with him driving the motor vehicle in the condition he was in and refused to give her the keys. She left (with her son) and called police since client had insisted on driving. She cooperated with police and police found him a few hundred years down the road. They stated that he failed the sobriety test and failed the Breathalyzer with a reading of 3.1%. 3.1% is nearly four times the legal limit. Prior to trial, Attorney Barabino made vigorous attempts to have the case thrown out in its entirety but was not successful. As the case moved forward, he sent the case down for Motion to Dismiss hearing regarding the Reckless Endangerment charge (which carried mandatory jail time), and that motion was allowed. At the day of trial, every witness appeared, leaving the client with the pre-trial option of a plea, which he eagerly sought. When the deal was argued before the judge, the Commonwealth asked the judge to force client to attend parenting classes and install a Sobrietier machine installed in his home. Attorney Barabino argued against it and was successful. The judge agreed with Attorney Barabino and the client left court with what he wanted---no jail time.
RESULT: Reckless Endangerment of a Child, DISMISSED, Motion to Dismiss, ALLOWED, NO JAIL TIME ON SECOND OFFENSE.

1 2 Last »