» Criminal Defense


April 8th 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. Included were conflicting statements by accused, a parking clerk that stated she could barely stand, and finally police officers that 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” or “not guilty” beyond a reasonable doubt of the crime charged. 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 would give them one more time 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.


August 19th 2014
OUI - Liquor or .08%
Client was a hard working supermarket manager. After having a few drinks after work one day, he was returned home to discover a DWI/Roadblock. The State Police noticed that he had glassy red eyes, admitted to consuming two drinks, slurred his speech, and was very unsteady on his feet. After an unsuccessful performance on his field sobriety test, he was arrested. Client took the stand in his own defense. A clear timeline and understanding of his natural inability to perform the test was presented, and an attentive jury returned a verdict of not guilty. Motion to reinstate client’s license, allowed.
RESULT: Jury returns verdict of NOT GUILTY, Motion to reinstate license, ALLOWED.

Resisting Arrest, NO JAIL TIME, Assault and Battery on a Police Officer, DISMISSED

December 17th 2013
Resisting Arrest
Assault and Battery on a Police Office
Client, a hairdresser, had accumulated several criminal complaints against her, alleging she had committed several different crimes. In each case, the police alleged that the defendant was unruly and offensive to police when they arrived to respond to the 911 emergency calls. On one occasion, the defendant went into her home and refused to leave. When police asked her to step outside she, according to Police, pushed the officer from behind and used some profanity. When police began to arrest her, they claimed she required three cops to arrest her due to her violent nature and actions. Attorney Barabino and the defendant were comfortable in having a jury decide whether she intended to commit Assault and Battery on an Police Officer. However, at the trial date, it was unnecessary as the District Attorney simply dismissed the charge. Probation was allowed on the remaining charges and no jail time as a result.

Assault and Battery, DISMISSED, Illegal Drug Distribution, DISMISSED

August 21nd 2012
Assault and Battery Chapter 265 Section 15?
Possession to Distribute Class “D” Chapter 94C Section 32(c)
Client was a landscaper who was in warrant status as a result of not reporting to his probation officer. Moreover, he was charged with new crimes of Assault and Battery and Distributing Class “D” (marijuana). Attorney Barabino brought to the charges straight to trial---little time to waste since there would be consequences from his probation officer if he was convicted of new charges. At trial, the Commonwealth was unable to secure the necessary witnesses to present their evidence, and the Assault and Battery was dismissed. Attorney Barabino next filed what is called waiver of jury to allow the judge to hear the remaining evidence for distribution. Once that was complete, the District Attorney simply assented that their probability of securing a verdict was low—so low that they agreed to dismiss the distribution charge in its entirety.
RESULT: Assault and Battery Charge DISMISSED. Distribution Charge DISMISSED.


July 13th 2012
The Sex Offender Registry Board (SORB) categorized client, a father of two, as a Level III Sex Offender. When the Board determines that the risk of re-offense is high and the degree of dangerousness posed to the public is such that a substantial public safety interest is served by active dissemination, it gives a Level III designations to the sex offender. The Level III status is devastating to the offender since it requires active public notification wherever the offender lives and employs. In the present case, Attorney Barabino conducted countless interviews and assembled all the relevant documentation for presentation to the SORB Board. After several weeks of waiting for the written decision, all the parties were notified that client was reduced to a Level II status---consequently not requiring public notification of his crimes.

Illegal Drug Related Charges, SCHOOL ZONE DISMISSED, Negligent Operation, Speeding, License Suspension, REDUCED TO FIRST OFFENSE, NO JAIL TIME FOR ANY CHARGE

June 26th 2012
Drug, Possession to Distribute Class A Chapter 94C Section 32A (a)

Unlawful Drug Possession Chapter 94C Section 34
Drug Violation Near School/Park Chapter 94C 32 J

Negligent Operation of Motor Vehicle Chapter 90 Section 24(2)(a)

Speeding in Violation of Special Regulation Chapter 90 Section 18
License Suspended, Operation Motor Vehicle, Subsequent Offense Chapter 90 Section 23E
Client was recently licensed barber who was charged with several offenses. Those offenses included Possession of Heroin, Possession of Heroin with the Intent to Distribute, School Zone/Park Drug Violation, Negligent Operation of a Motor Vehicle, Failure to Stop for Police, Driving on a Suspended License Subsequent Offense, and related civil infractions. According to police, they saw client driving and they knew from prior knowledge that he did not have an active license. They stated they were “very familiar” with client. The statement that they were very familiar with client was supported by the client’s former arrest for distribution and possession of drugs. When they hit the sirens to pull him over he took off and the police chased him for several streets until they caught him on a one way. After client was stopped, they arrested him and took him for booking. After the arrest they found ten separate baggies of what was heroin, packaged in a method consistent with distribution of the drug. Moreover, and very problematic for the Defendant, was that the police charged him with distributing the drugs in a school zone, which carries a two-year house of correction sentence—mandatory—meaning no suspended sentence, no house arrest and obligatory jail time. After nearly a year of litigating the case and hiring an expert in distribution of drugs, the day of trial finally arrived. At trial, the Commonwealth brought with them their own expert in drug distribution, an expert in school zone measurement, two police officers, a chemist from the State Police crime lab, and a representative from the Department of the Registry of Motor Vehicles. Despite Attorney Barabino's ability to and desire to prove his client's innocence, a deal was offered that client was very receptive to. The deal included the Commonwealth dismissing the School Zone Drug Violation charge, dismissing the Possession Charge, reducing the Driving on a Suspended License offense from a subsequent offense to a first offense, a Continuation Without a Finding on the Negligent Operation of a Motor Vehicle, and no fine imposed for the civil offenses.
RESULT: School Zone, DISMISSED, Driving on a Suspended License Subsequent Offense, REDUCED TO FIRST OFFENSE, NO JAIL TIME FOR ANY CHARGE.

Assault and Battery, Breaking and Entering, Vandalizing Property, Intimidation of a Witness, Assault with a Dangerous Weapon, FIVE OUT OF SIX CHARGES DROPPED, MISDEMEANOR DISMISSAL

May 24th 2012
Assault and Battery Chapter 265 Section 15?
Breaking and Entering in the Nighttime for Felony Chapter 266 Section 16
Vandalize Property Chapter 266 Section 126A
Vandalize Property Chapter 266 Section 126A
Intimidation of a Witness Chapter 268 Section 13b
Assault with a Dangerous Weapon Chapter 265 Section 15B
Client was a laid off manufacturing employee who had a rocky relationship with his daughter’s mother. According to police and his police record, client has been accused of assaulting her in the past. In fact, she and her child were placed in a residential location paid for via the Commonwealth based on her alleged fear of client. On this occasion, daughter's mother claimed that client was able to locate her from an unknown source and when he knocked on her door he pushed himself in the room. Once inside the room, he held her down on the bed and punched her twice in the face. After this struggle, the report stated that he broke two telephones and assaulted her child. Once over, he left the premises and she, exhausted and out of breath, called 911. She informed the police of what had occurred and they placed a warrant out for client's arrest. Once arrested, a separate hearing was requested from the District Attorney’s office called a 58A. The purpose of the 58A was to see if bail should even be a consideration in this case. The District Attorney was successful and client was detained until trial. Attorney Barabino and his client had one alternative for the District Attorney to consider. That was drop all the charges or fill in the jury box. No deal was reached. Defense knew that what alleged victims had told police could be defended in court and there was another story to be told. At the day of trial, Attorney Barabino and his client rejected all offers for a deal. However, as the trial was moments away from beginning, there was one offer client could not say no too. The offer was to drop five of the six charges in their entirety and the one charge of assault and battery to continue without a finding, which simply means the if client completes the term of probation the one charge will be dismissed.


February 17th 2012
2nd OFFENSE OUI- Liquor or .08%
Child Endangerment with Operating Under the Influence
Client was an employee with the Department of Defense. He was charged with Reckless Endangerment of a Child and Operating Under the Influence of Alcohol Second Offense. According to the police, the client's ex-wife received a call from client that he was intoxicated and driving around with her child. She became frantic and searched for client. When she located him, she argued with him driving the motor vehicle in the condition he was in and refused to give her the keys. She left (with her son) and called police since client had insisted on driving. She cooperated with police and police found him a few hundred years down the road. They stated that he failed the sobriety test and failed the Breathalyzer with a reading of 3.1%. 3.1% is nearly four times the legal limit. Prior to trial, Attorney Barabino made vigorous attempts to have the case thrown out in its entirety but was not successful. As the case moved forward, he sent the case down for Motion to Dismiss hearing regarding the Reckless Endangerment charge (which carried mandatory jail time), and that motion was allowed. At the day of trial, every witness appeared, leaving the client with the pre-trial option of a plea, which he eagerly sought. When the deal was argued before the judge, the Commonwealth asked the judge to force client to attend parenting classes and install a Sobrietier machine installed in his home. Attorney Barabino argued against it and was successful. The judge agreed with Attorney Barabino and the client left court with what he wanted---no jail time.
RESULT: Reckless Endangerment of a Child, DISMISSED, Motion to Dismiss, ALLOWED, NO JAIL TIME ON SECOND OFFENSE.