» Criminal Procedure

August 2nd 2018
Assault
Client was working his second job as a manager for a restaurant when a patron made repeated complaints. After trying to resolve the situation to the patron's satisfaction, the man (a lawyer), said he would tell his Twitter followers and began taking pictures. After being asked to leave, the patron complied and was escorted out by client. However, when patron was just about to leave, he turned back around and bumped into client and patron. Police were immediately called. The patron declared that he would sue, and he was given a settlement by the owner of the restaurant to avoid the cost of litigation. In the end, Attorney Barabino came to the hearing with videotape, statements, witnesses and other exhibits. After a hearing, the complaint did not issue. It will remain open for six months, assuming no other concerns.
RESULT: Application for Complaint, DOES NOT ISSUE.

January 5^th 2017
Criminal Procedure Rule 30: Post-Conviction Relief- New Trial
Drug, Possession Class B (Cocaine)
Client was a hard-working business owner and professional who sought to undo a past mistake. Years ago, after having been found guilty of possessing cocaine, he wanted to reverse that conviction. His contraband had been tested by a known, discredited lab chemist. The result was that a good faith basis to reverse the conviction was filed with an affidavit, memorandum, and certified supporting documentation. That package was filed with the court, and a hearing date was scheduled. In the interim, Attorney Barabino met with the District Attorney who was in agreement with his request. The Commonwealth did not file opposition. In the interest of justice, the motion for a new trial was allowed, and the case was dismissed.
RESULT: Motion for New Trial, ALLOWED, CASE DISMISSED.

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.