» court

September 11^th 2015
OUI - Liquor or .08%
Client was a hard working hairstylist and single mother. According to police, she drank alcohol while under the influence. This case presented a variety of legal issues. Those included conflicting statements by the accused and a parking clerk that stated that she could barely stand. Police officers testified accurately that the accused performed her sobriety test in “less than ideal” conditions and had zero problems with at least one test. In the end, the jury could not reach a verdict. In any criminal trial, all the jurors must agree that the accused is “guilty” beyond a reasonable doubt of the crime charged or “not guilty”. Generally, an agreement is reached, one-way or the other. Sometimes that agreement takes longer than expected. In this case, the jury was deadlocked and simply could not agree. In the end, the parties agreed to a “Rodriguez” charge, which means that the judge is giving them one more opportunity to come to an agreement. Here, the instruction was given, but in the end, the jurors simply could not agree and the court ruled the matter a mistrial. During today's trial, the case was tried again and the witness/employee of the parking garage had an even different version of the events than before. On today's date, the jury had a quick and decisive decision with a brief deliberation and returned a verdict of not guilty.
RESULT: JURY FINDS DEFENDANT NOT GUILTY.

July 5^th 2015
Drug, Possession to Distribute Class B
Drug, Possession to Distribute Class B
Drug, Possession to Distribute Class B
Drug, Possession to Distribute Class C
Drug, Possession to Distribute Class E
Drug, Possession to Distribute Class C
Client was a young engineer involved with drugs. While under the influence, a young lady friend came over his home. She stayed at his home as a guest and tragically she passed away during the night as a result of a drug overdose. The defendant found her unresponsive and called police without hesitation. His attempts at first aid were valiant but unsuccessful. When police arrived to the home in response to the 911 calls they noticed various drugs in plain view. Those drugs included Morphine, Methadone, Suboxone, Klonopin, Gabapentin and Clonidine. There was enough in the view of police of each drug to charge distribution of the drugs. The police demonstrated a high level of expertise, professionalism, and sophistication. Their expertise was clear as they quickly noticed the necessity of applying for a search warrant for the drugs and conducting interviews and interrogations with proper rights administrated. In the end, the case moved through the court for nearly two years. As the case was close to trial, the District Attorney reduced the Class “A” charge to simple possession. That developed an opening to file a motion to dismiss not only that charge but also the remaining charges under the more recent law protecting people against being charged for possession of drugs when they call for help for people experiencing an overdose. The motion was filed. A hearing date was set. District Attorney stated his anticipated intend of dismissing the charges. On the day of the hearing, the case is dismissed in its entirety.
RESULT: Motion to Dismiss, FILED, CASES 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 18^th 2015
Larceny by Single Scheme
Credit Card False over 250
Identity Fraud
Client was a polite, bright young man who had a drug problem. According to police, he was involved in several schemes to defraud people. First, gaining access to their credit cards and eventually using those credit cards for exorbitant purchases. Police investigated and made an identification of his co-defendant. Attorney Barabino sought an evidentiary hearing, filing a motion with the court with a supporting legal memorandum outlining the reasons why the court should not permit the “I.D.” to be allowed, since it was suggestive. The court agreed. The motion to exclude the ‘I.D.” was allowed and little evidence remained in the case for the prosecution. After nearly a year of preparation, the case resulted in a dismissal.
RESULT: Motion to Suppress Identification, ALLOWED. CASE DISMISSED.

April 30^th 2014
2nd Offense OUI- Liquor or .08%
Negligent Operation of Motor Vehicle
Operating Motor Vehicle with Suspended License
According to police, client drove recklessly around state police who were assisting with road construction safety. According to police report, client weaved around the police and workers in such a way that it required them to jump out of the way of his vehicle. According to the state troopers' police narrative, the defendant’s eyes were bloodshot, his speech slurred, he failed the sobriety test, and he failed a Breathalyzer test. The client weighed his options with Attorney Barabino and in the end simply wanted to bring the matter to conclusion, to get a predictable result and obtain his license back as soon as possible. Following his client’s wishes, Attorney Barabino met with the District Attorney, who remained committed to recommending a suspended six-month jail sentence, a two-week inpatient detoxification program, and related programs. The judge listened intently and diligently to all sides and in the end agreed with Attorney Barabino for a 12 Month CWOF for the OUI Second Offense and to treat it as a First Offense instead. The judge gave the District Attorney what he sought on the Negligent Operation and License Suspension.
RESULT: OUI Second Offense Reduced to First Offense Deal, SECURED, Continued Without a Finding (CWOF) for a Period of One Year, with DISMISSAL After One Year.

January 21^st 2014
Abuse Prevention Order
Client was a hard working woman with no criminal record. According to police, her ex-lover said she violated a recent restraining order that was in place. Police could have mailed her a letter ordering her to court—but choose to arrest her instead while in her workplace. Humiliated about the workplace arrest and concerned about a possible criminal record, she and Attorney Barabino filed several motions to help her case, including a Motion to Dismiss. That motion had a legal memorandum outlining the reasons and justification for the court to order dismissal. The court arranged for a hearing date, and today, after a hearing had been previously held nearly two months ago, the court entered a formal dismissal in her favor, outlining the reasons for the motion to be allowed. Case dismissed.
RESULT: Motion to Dismiss, FILED, ALLOWED, CASE DISMISSED.

August 8^th 2013
Drug, Possession to Distribute Class A Chapter 94C Section 32A (a)
Drug, Possession to Distribute Class B Chapter 94C Section 32A (a)
Drug, Possession to Distribute Class C Chapter 94C Section 32A (a)
Client was under observation from police when he was stopped and arrested. According to police, they stopped Defendant and saw drugs in plain view on his car seat. The police searched the vehicle and located what they believed to be various drugs that were being prepared for distribution. The drugs that were allegedly intended to be distributed were thought by police to be Neurontin, Lexapro and Codeine. After nearly two years of litigating the case in court, a drug certification was provided to the Defendant, which stated that some of the drugs were in fact heroin. To add to the confusion, there was no chemist to testify as to the specific composition of the drugs at trial, which is almost always necessary for a conviction. At the day of trial, the Commonwealth was unable to secure the presence of the State Chemist. Attorney Barabino asked the court to dismiss the case as a result. The court, for various reasons, allowed the request for a dismissal. Case Closed.
RESULT: Possession with Intent to Distribute Class A, B & C Drugs, DISMISSED.

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