» Crime

October 9th 2014
License Restriction, Operate Motor Vehicle
Ignition Interlock, Operation Without
According to police, client was driving an unregistered vehicle with a bad inspection sticker when police pulled him over. Upon review, they determined that he did not have a legally required Breathalyzer machine installed in his vehicle, which is a mandatory 6-month jail sentence with no parole, probation, or suspended sentence. Client understood that jail was nearly unavoidable but regardless he underwent intense preparation for trial with Attorney Barabino. At the first trial date, the Commonwealth was unable to secure a necessary witness, so another date was selected. On, the second trial date, the Commonwealth was unable to secure a necessary witness from the Registry of Motor Vehicles (RMV), leaving them with limited options. The result was, after consultation, a full dismissal of the mandatory jail sentence.
RESULT: Mandatory Jail Sentence, DISMISSED.

September 2^nd 2014
OUI -Drugs
Client was a hard working, long-time truck driver with four children. When he was in a minor fender bender, the police thought he looked like “he could be under the influence”. He admitted to taking a sleeping pill of an unknown origin the night before, and was still sleepy. The police asked him to perform Field Sobriety Test (FST), which they said he failed. The police normally obtain at this point a Drug Recognition Expert or ‘DRE”, but they did not in this case. After examining the 911 tape, the accident scene, and witness statements, Attorney Barabino knew that the Commonwealth would be unsuccessful in proving its case. Attorney Barabino and client brought the case to trial, to which the Commonwealth stated it was not ready. Attorney Baraboo requested that the charge be dropped or “dismissed”, to which the judge agreed. Charge dismissed.
RESULT: CASE DISMISSED.

May 16^th 2013
Firearm Carrying with Ammunition
Drug, Possession to Distribute
Client was a high school student who was being watched by the Lynn Gang Task Force. According the police, they saw client speaking with a high-ranking gang member who himself had been convicted of gun charges. Moments later, they arrested client with a Loaded .380 Handgun in his pocket and seventeen ecstasy pills. He was charged with a number of offenses, including possession of a loaded firearm and drug distribution. Initially, the young man was charged as a juvenile, but soon after those charges were dismissed and he was recharged under the Youthful Offender Law. Under the Youthful Offender Law, he could be sentenced to state prison. Client was released from custody after posting a substantial bail. After nearly three years of various hearings, motions, and challenges to the evidence, the case moved closer to trial. Attorney Barabino suppressed one piece of evidence, which prevented the Commonwealth from using the Defendant's statement that he was a member of the “CRIPS”. Once that was decided, a trial date was scheduled. At the trial date, all the Commonwealth's experts and the defense experts appeared as well as other witnesses. However, moments prior to the jury being selected, a deal was made that allowed client not to serve any jail time. Defendant was placed on a suspended sentence with no jail time served. The drugs had been excluded by agreement as they had been tainted by the “Dookham drug scandal”, so the drug charge was dismissed.
RESULT: After 1st Trial, Motion to Suppress, ALLOWED. NO JAIL TIME. Drug Distribution, 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.

December 11^th 2012
Unlawful Possession of a Firearm Chapter 269 Section 10(a)
Unlawful Possession of Ammunition Chapter 269 Section 10 (h)
Carrying a Loaded Firearm Chapter 269 Section 10(n)
Habitual Offender Statute Chapter 279 Section 25
Client was a hard working father and husband who had been standing on a sidewalk in Roxbury with several other men. Police arrived and searched all the people, including client. After they searched client they discovered he possessed a loaded 9mm firearm in his waistband. Client was arrested and charged with the above charges and appointed a public defender. The public defender did a great job of obtaining a dismissal of the Habitual Offender Law, which had exposed client to potential significant prison time. However, after nearly a year of litigating the case, client sought Attorney Barabino to represent him on the above firearms-related charges. Attorney Barabino conducted a thorough examination of the crime scene, called witnesses to testify, and asserted case law regarding search and seizure in an extensive memorandum of law. On the day he filed a Motion to Suppress was filed, Commonwealth filed a separate motion with the court to withdraw the case from prosecution. Case Closed.
RESULT: Motion to Suppress, FILED. CASE DISMISSED.

October 9^th 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.