» Criminal Law

April 2^nd 2013
Leave Scene of Property Damage Chapter 90, Section 24 (2)(a)
Client was a father and hardworking employee of the US Postal Service. According to police, he drove his vehicle in an erratic manner causing an accident. After the accident, they alleged that Defendant drove away without giving his information to the other driver as required by law. After consultation and review Attorney Barabino and client sought a trial date with the expectation that a not guilty verdict would be the result. However, when the accuser failed to show up for trial, Attorney Barabino simply requested that the matter be dismissed, to which the judge agreed. Case Dismissed.
RESULT: Leaving the Scene of Property Damage, 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.

August 21^nd 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.

March 1st 2012
Abuse Prevention Order Chapter 209A
Client was a young man and father that was on a three year suspended sentence in New Hampshire for another crime. If he was convicted on the above offense of violating a restraining order, he would not only be charged for his crime in Massachusetts but would also serve a three year sentence in New Hampshire. According to the police, client was seen leaving a restricted area that he was ordered to stay away from. At trial, Attorney Barabino requested the court appoint an attorney to investigate if the complainant was lying to police. At the conclusion of the hearing, the complainant was required not to testify, leaving the Commonwealth with only one option---to dismiss the case.
RESULT: Restraining Order Charge DISMISSED ON THE DAY OF TRIAL.

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.