» Conspiracy

May 10^th 2016
Conspiracy to Violate Drug Law
Intimidation of a Witness
According to jail security, client, who was an inmate, was involved in a scheme to have drugs brought into the jail. He was a target because he had been involved in drug dealing before. The case was developed with great detail by the investigators. They assembled recordings of phone calls, collected physical evidence, and found a participating co-conspirator to admit to the scheme. Then yet another co-conspirator admitted to the scheme. The drugs were sent to a laboratory for testing and were positive and the case was almost ready for trial. As the case proceeded, one of the four co-conspirators plead out to a sentence; then a second co-conspirator admitted his guilt and then another plead guilty. Only Attorney Barabino’s client remained, who had no such intention to plead guilty. Although he had been involved with drugs in the past—he was not guilty and was not going to admit to being so. Soon, after a separate motion to suppress the identification was held to preserve his rights moving forward, a trial date was set. The day of trial came and the required co-conspirator to prove the crime did not appear and the case was dismissed in full.
RESULT: All Charges DROPPED/DISMISSED

November 18^th 2015
Drug, Possession to Distribute Class D
Conspiracy
Client was a high school student and charged with Conspiracy to Distribute Marijuana and a separate charge of Possession with Intent to Distribute. After a previous dismissal, he found himself back at the same court for trial. With nearly a fourth a pound of marijuana, cash, and a scale, we were ready for trial. Moments before the trial began we agreed to a deal with the Commonwealth that would dismiss the Conspiracy charge, reduce the possession to distribute charge to simple possession, and dismiss the simple possession charge after a 21-day probation.
RESULT: CHARGE DISMISSED. SECOND CHARGE REDUCED AND DISMISSED AFTER PROBATION OF 21 DAYS. NO CONDITIONS.

October 7^th 2015
Possession with Intent to Distribute Class “D”
Conspiracy
Client was a loving father, a dedicated employee, and a supportive partner. According to police, an “informant” provided information to police that he thought that drug dealing was occurring at his home. Police, being particularly detailed, commenced what are called “trash pulls”, which included a review of the contents of all their trash at multiple trash drops. A search warrant was executed. Police located a few ounces of marijuana, scales and baggies. The cases presented some complexities since there was an immigration detainer. So the goal was to move the case as fast as possible. However, despite immigration concerns, client and Attorney Barabino didn’t want to see him admit to a distribution charge, when the reality was that it was simply marijuana for personal use, albeit a larger amount than typical for the average smoker. In the end, immigration consequences left us no choice but trial and mid-day into the first day of trial, moments before the jury was to enter, an agreement to reduce the charge to simple possession ended the case.
RESULT: REDUCTION FROM DISTRIBUTION TO SIMPLE POSSESSION. Conspiracy DISMISSED.

May 4^th 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.

March 16^th 2015
Drug, Possession to Distribute Class B, Subsequent Offense
Drug, Possession to Distribute Class C, Subsequent Offense
Drug, Possession to Distribute Class B, Subsequent Offense
Conspiracy to Violate Drug Law
Drug Violation Near School/Park
Client was a hard working father and husband. According to police, he was a convicted drug dealer who was dealing drugs. According to a report filed by police, client met with another individual who was buying his drugs. An informant had been providing information to police, they said. Police saw client and ordered him to exit the motor vehicle. They asked him questions and lastly confiscated his phone, money and small amount of drugs. The charge required an indictment to Superior Court because it was not his first arrest for dealing. However, the case ultimately remained within District Court. Police initiated forensic investigation into his phone after receiving search warrant. Attorney Barabino would later seek to have that thrown out as evidence, but first he sought a hearing to reduce the school zone/park violation. He filed a Motion to Dismiss, and after a hearing, that motion was allowed. That meant client was no longer subject to the mandatory two-year prison sentence. That charge was consequently dismissed. Afterwards, another hearing was set and motions and legal memoranda filed to suppress or wipe out all the evidence. Attorney Barabino attempted to persuade the judge that the search was illegal. When the judge ruled that the search is indeed illegal, that evidence that was located was not permitted to be used. After the hearing another date was set to hear the judge's ruling. At that hearing, the judge filed a lengthy legal memorandum setting out the reasons why all the evidence would be suppressed. All charges would be dismissed.
RESULT: Motion to Dismiss School Zone/Park, ALLOWED, Motion to Suppress all the evidence, ALLOWED.