» Criminal Offense

February 12^th 2014
Marked Lanes Violation
Operating Motor Vehicle with Suspended License
Client was a hard working computer engineer who was stopped for a Marked Lanes Violation. When he was stopped for a marked lanes violation, the officer informed him that his license was suspended---a criminal offense. Attorney Barabino negotiated with the very reasonable and experienced Middlesex prosecutors, who after reviewing all the facts and the client's otherwise outstanding background, agreed to dismiss the charge of license suspension, with court cost, and find him not responsible for the civil infraction.
RESULT: Charge DISMISSED on Court Cost, Civil Infraction, NOT RESPONSIBLE.

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.

December 13^th 2012
Yield at Intersection, Fail Chapter 89 Section 8
License Suspended, Operating Motor Vehicle with c90 §23
Leave Scene of Property Damage Chapter 90, Section 24 (2)(a)
Use of Motor Vehicle Without Authority Chapter 90, Section 24 (2)(a)
Client was a heavy machinery operator who was charged with multiple criminal and civil driving offenses. According to police, client drove into another vehicle and both motor vehicles were destroyed. Client had a suspended license for drinking and driving and had been charged prior to the incident in question. A guilty conviction after trial would have almost certainly meant jail time. The entire case hinged on an obvious identification flaw, and the Commonwealth admitted that flaw at the day of trial. As a result, they offered to dismiss nearly all the charges if client would admit to a lenient penalty on one of the charges. Client stood fast and refused the generous offer. In the end, the Commonwealth simply dismissed the entire case.
RESULT: ALL CRIMINAL AND CIVIL CHARGES 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.

November 24^th 2012
Unlicensed Operation of a Motor Vehicle Chapter 90 Section 10
Inspection Sticker Chapter 90 Section 20
Alcohol in Motor Vehicle, Possession Open Container Chapter 90 Section 24I
Client was an out-of-state resident who was driving in Massachusetts without a license. He was stopped by police and charged with various offenses. According to the police report, client was stopped initially due to his lack of Massachusetts license, a criminal offense. Once he was stopped he was charged with other crimes. Attorney Barabino reviewed all the reports and ticketing information processed by police for this arrest. Upon a through review, he determined the tickets issued by police were not in compliance with required regulations. As a result of the police not following the proper requirements, he filed a Motion to Dismiss, along with a lengthy memorandum of law. The court held a hearing to listen to the legal arguments presented by Attorney Barabino, and at the conclusion of the hearing the judge allowed Attorney Barabino’s Motion to Dismiss the three charges.
RESULT: Motion to Dismiss, ALLOWED. ALL THREE CHARGES DISMISSED.

July 13^th 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.
RESULT: Client’s Level III Status LOWERED FROM LEVEL III TO LEVEL II.