» Case Dismissed

June 11^th 2014
Assault and Battery
A young, classy U.S. Marine war veteran and college student was charged with Domestic Assault and Battery against his wife. According to Police, he spit in her face and pushed her with two hands. Attorney Barabino brought the matter to trial, and at the day of trial, the wife asserted her privilege not to testify against her husband. With no other evidence, the judge allowed a Motion to Dismiss, and the defendant was discharged. Case dismissed.
RESULT: Domestic Assault and Battery, DISMISSED.

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 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 22^nd 2013
Leave Scene of Property Damage Chapter 90, Section 24 (2)(a)
Client was a hard working professional with no prior criminal record. According to police, they received a report that client had hit another person with a vehicle and left the scene. Client had no recollection of making any contact with any other vehicle. In fact, his recollection was an out of control woman yelling at him while he was parked at a stoplight, which he ignored. Prior to the Defendant’s arraignment, Attorney Barabino filed a Motion to Dismiss with a memorandum of law. This motion was allowed and the matter was remanded back to a Clerk Magistrate’s Hearing at a later date. At the Magistrate’s Hearing, the Magistrate grilled the Defendant and sought yet an additional date to continue the hearing. At the second date, the state police and Clerk Magistrate both took notice of the Defendant’s lack of criminal history, the statements of the parties, and the insurance information declaring the woman was paid back all her out of pocket cost. The case was dismissed as a result. No record of the incident will appear on the client's record, anywhere.
RESULT: No Criminal Complaint Issues at Clerk Magistrate Hearing, CASE DISMISSED.

April 2^nd 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.

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 15^th 2013
Reckless Endangerment of Child
Drug, Possession Class B (Cocaine)
Possession of Class “A” Heroin
Possession of Class “E” Substance
Client was a hard working waitress who had been associated with drug use and abuse for some time. On the above date, she was charged with possession of Class A, B, and E drugs and Reckless Endangerment of a Child. According to police, they received a 911 emergency call that two people were badly intoxicated, and they were consequently dispatched to investigate. Upon doing so, they saw a man who appeared to be intoxicated and client who was seated in a vehicle. According to police, there was evidence they were about to shoot heroin with their child in the back seat. Attorney Barabino challenged the method and extraction of client as unconstitutional and after hearing testimony, arguments being made, and supported case law asserted, the judge issued a decision, which allowed a Motion to Suppress Evidence. Since the evidence was excluded, the case would be dismissed. Case dismissed.
RESULT: Motion to Suppress, ALLOWED, CASE DISMISSED.