» Commonwealth

October 3^rd 2016
Shoplifting by Asportation
Client took items that did not belong to her. To summarize, the acts that she committed were sufficient for a charge and conviction of shoplifting. However, the clerk magistrate hearing process in Massachusetts allows for representation by an attorney at the hearing. In this case, Attorney Barabino was selected. He went to the scene of the incident, conducted a detailed review with client on her background, and had a discussion with the storeowner. After the hearing—no issue processed. Client free to leave with no evidence of any charge ever being filed. No Charges Issue.
RESULT: NO COMPLAINT TO ISSUE

January 12^th 2016
Domestic Assault and Battery
Client was a hard working nurse, wife, and mother. According to witnesses, she drank a bit too much and slapped her husband several times. Department of Children and Family Services were called but declined to investigate further. At arraignment, Commonwealth sought random alcohol screens and Attorney Barabino argued they were not necessary as a condition of release. The court agreed with Attorney Barabino, and the case was dismissed at trial with a marital privilege exception.
RESULT: DISMISSAL

October 2^nd 2015
Trafficking in Oxycodone
Felon in Possession Firearm
Conspiracy
Armed Career Criminal (ACC)
According to Federal Agents, the defendant was participating in a drug distribution ring that had an international reach. Although, not a central player by any stretch, police felt strongly enough to set up controlled “buys” at the defendant’s home. The federal government utilized their many resources, which included wiretaps to record transactions inside the home. Fortunately, the federal government lost interest in the case as their “informant” was charged with drug dealing himself. The state took over the operation and their highly skilled prosecutorial team moved forward with the case. The case was as complex as any drug case could be. After a thorough review of the massive amount of data provided, Attorney Barabino filed a Motion to Dismiss the Armed Career Criminal or ‘ACC”, which is a sentencing enhancement. That well written motion was allowed by the judge and that particular indictment was dismissed. Once that indictment was dismissed, Attorney Barabino went to work on attempting to dismiss/reduce the remaining indictments, challenging the weight of the narcotics. In summary, he called in question the method that the Commonwealth uses to weight out and eventually charge people. He hired an expert and argued the motion with a lengthy and detailed memorandum of law. Although denied after a 6-month review by the judge, Attorney Barabino appealed it to a single justice of the Massachusetts Supreme Court, and eventually the full Bench of the Massachusetts Supreme Court. Disappointed that they did not take the case, he continued his advocacy. With the aide of another co-defendant lawyer, a loophole in the search warrant discovery process was determined and a partial motion to suppress was allowed. The result was after years of intense litigation, and an outstanding advocacy from the Commonwealth’s attorney as well, an admission of guilt was rendered with a penalty of a $50 fine. All remaining counts were dismissed. No Minimum Mandatory Sentence.
RESULT: Motion to Dismiss Armed Career Criminal, ALLOWED, Motion to Suppress, ALLOWED (In part), APPEAL to Massachusetts Supreme Court.

October 10^th 2014
OUI - Liquor or .08%
Client was a hard working government employee with no criminal record. According to police, he rear-ended another vehicle and was given sobriety test, which they say he failed. Client took a Breathalyzer test and registered over twice the legal limit. Attorney Barabino consulted with his client very early, who simply sought to be walked through the process as efficiently and inexpensively as possible. The District Attorney sought an 18-month probation period but after a hearing, the court allowed the defendant's request for a one year period instead.
RESULT: COURT ALLOWS DEFENDANT REQUEST FOR LESS PROBATION

January 23^rd 2014
Possession of Class B, Subsequent Offense
Client had previously admitted guilt to a charge of possession of cocaine, subsequent offense. Attorney Barabino sought to reopen his case since the drugs had been tested by the drug lab manipulator “Annie Dookham”. Attorney Barabino brought a motion to reopen the case or a Motion for a New Trial. That motion was allowed despite being vehemently opposed by the District Attorney. The District Attorney refused to dismiss the charges even though client had served a majority of the jail time that is permitted for the charge. As a result, Attorney Barabino sought to dismiss the evidence, since he alleged that it was obtained in violation of his constitutional rights—which ultimately would have forced the case to be dismissed. The court, in its eventual ruling, sided with the defendant. In this case, the Commonwealth sought additional time to consult with their appellate division, but the result remained clear, and despite the additional time, the case would be dismissed.
RESULT: Motion for a New Trial, ALLOWED, Motion to SUPPRESS, ALLOWED, Case DISMISSED.

September 4^th 2013
Negligent Operation of Motor Vehicle
Speeding in Violation of Special Regulation
License Suspended, Operation Motor Vehicle, Subsequent Offense
Assault with a Dangerous Weapon
Resisting Arrest
Attempted Murder
Client was a hardworking father and employee who required representation for several charges. According to police he was a member of a reputed motorcycle gang and was intent on killing a high-ranking member of the local police force. The client was charged with Attempted Murder, Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon, Assault and Battery on a Police Officer, Negligent Operation of a Motor Vehicle, Operating with a Suspended Licenses Subsequent Offense, Resisting Arrest and some civil ordinance violations. According to police, he tried to evade a stop, and tried to kill the officer with his motorcycle and upon being physically stopped tried to assault and beat the officer and resist arrest. A struggle lasted in what the District Attorney stated was one of this officer's most violent struggles. At one point the police alleged that he came dangerously close to his firearm. Eventually, the struggle ended and client was charged with the crimes noted above. Attorney Barabino and client moved through the court process, which the Attempted Murder was first dismissed and no indictment occurred. The matter resolved in District Court and the jury concluded that despite all the allegations, the Commonwealth did not prove that client intended to harm anyone.
RESULT: NOT-GUILTY on Assault and Battery with a D/W, Attempted Murder DISMISSED, License Suspension Subsequent DISMISSED, Assault and Battery on Police Officer DISMISSED after Verdict MISTRIAL.

March 29^th 2013
Leave Scene of Property Damage Chapter 90, Section 24 (2)(a)
2nd OFFENSE OUI- Liquor or .08% Chapter 90 Section 24(1) (a) (1)
According to police, client had rammed into a vehicle and left the scene of the accident. Police responded to the scene and immediately noticed, while on patrol, that the client's vehicle had damage similar that that which would be described. When police pulled the vehicle over they noticed paint matched the vehicle that was hit. They also noticed paint on the other vehicle and noticed that it matched as well. The police spoke to client and stated that his speech was slurred; he had to hold on to the side of the truck for balance; his eyes were bloodshot and glassy; his breath smelt like booze; and he was unsteady on his feet. Moreover, the client had Budweiser cans opened and unopened, strewn throughout the vehicle. Client simply wanted to gain his license back, but the District Attorney of Essex County sought jail time instead. The Commonwealth presented five separate witnesses. At sentencing, the DA requested this hard working single father be sent to prison for two years suspended and serve a full year committed in jail. In the end, the judge agreed with Attorney Barabino and denied the Commonwealth request. Judge simply placed the Defendant on probation with a brief 14 day-impatient program. All the civil violation were found not responsible and the verdict on the Leaving the Scene was a clear and resounding "not guilty".
RESULT: Leaving the Scene of Property Damage, NOT GUILTY AFTER TRIAL, All Civil Violations found NOT RESPONSIBLE. NO JAIL FOR OUI CHARGE

December 13^th 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.