» Defendant

2nd OFFENSE OUI, Standard 2nd Offense Statutory Disposition

January 10th 2018
SECOND OFFENSE OUI- Liquor or .08%
Client was a hard-working, former U.S. Army Officer and war veteran was charged with operating under the influence of alcohol, 2nd offense. According to police, he was operating his vehicle when he lightly struck another vehicle. He was mumbling and disheveled and intoxicated to the point where he was unable to speak coherently and maintain basic balance. Despite the egregious allegations, he did have some defenses. However, despite those defenses, he simply wanted to bring the case to conclusion as quickly as possible, which Attorney Barabino did. The law provides a minimum mandatory disposition for people charged with a second offense charge within ten years of the first charge. As a result of client’s background, Attorney Barabino was able to negotiate the minimum of a sixty-day house of correction sentence, suspended for a two-year period. Client will also be required to attend a mandatory two-week impatient program.
RESULT: 2nd OFFENSE OUI, Standard 2ndOffense Statutory Disposition

OUI-liquor, COURT ALLOWS DEFENDANT REQUEST FOR LESS PROBATION

October 10th 2014
OUI - Liquor or .08%
Client was a hard working government employee with no criminal record. According to police, he rear-ended another vehicle and was given sobriety test, which they say he failed. Client took a Breathalyzer test and registered over twice the legal limit. Attorney Barabino consulted with his client very early, who simply sought to be walked through the process as efficiently and inexpensively as possible. The District Attorney sought an 18-month probation period but after a hearing, the court allowed the defendant's request for a one year period instead.
RESULT: COURT ALLOWS DEFENDANT REQUEST FOR LESS PROBATION

Assault and Battery, CROSS COMPLAINT FILED, CASE DISMISSED IN ONE YEAR, NO ADMISSION OF ANY EVIDENCE OR WRONGDOING, NO FEES, NO FINES

December 3rd 2013
Assault and Battery
Client was a young, educated artist from India who came to the United States with her new husband. Shortly after the marriage, the husband made frequent and repeated monetary demands of the defendant and her family. He alleged that the demands were simply an extension of the dowry, or gift giving, in their country's custom. However, when she refused to provide more gifts, he filed for divorce and slammed her with a restraining order. He also claimed that she assaulted and battered him. Then he made attempts to obtain an abused spouse/domestic violence visa from law enforcement, which would have accelerated his own green card application. Then he obtained a restraining order after providing the court with a summary of private conversations that the defendant had with her family and were (accidentally) recorded by her while he was at work. Attorney Barabino was retained after the defendant discharged her prior attorney. When Attorney Barabino took over the case, he restarted the case from its beginning. He hired a forensic computer expert to examine the contents of the unconsented recordings. At the same time, he filed a Criminal Cross Complaint against the alleged victim. Time was of the essence since defendant was on a time sensitive schedule, which could have resulted in her being deported prior to her case being brought to trial. Negotiations resulted in an agreement for a postponed dismissal of the charge. No immigration consequences as well for defendant.
RESULT: Cross Complaint FILED, CASE DISMISSED in One Year, NO ADMISSION OF ANY EVIDENCE OR WRONGDOING, NO FEES, NO FINES.

Larceny from a Building, NOT GUILTY

September 18th 2013
Larceny from a Building
Client was a young man charged with the felony offense of Larceny from a Building. According to police and surveillance video provided by the establishment, the Defendant did take a pocketbook. However, after several witnesses testified that the bag was left untouched in his friend’s car and the Defendant testified himself explaining that his girlfriend had the same type of purse, the jury quickly agreed that he simply made a mistake.
RESULT: Jury Verdict: NOT- GUILTY

Breaking and Entering, MOTION TO SUPPRESS FILED, CONDITIONAL DISMISSAL

September 5th 2013
Breaking and Entering Building Nighttime for Felony Chapter 266 Section 16
Breaking and Entering Building Nighttime for Felony Chapter 266 Section 16
Client was a high school student with supportive and loving parents. Client and another young man snuck out and entered some vehicles in the nighttime. The evidence was clear—they were seen on videotape and the police found them at the car. Eventually, Attorney Barabino presented the court with a motion to suppress statements made by the Defendant. Negotiations were triggered and offers made. The District Attorney agreed to reduce from felony to misdemeanors—and agreed to a probation term that allowed for a case to be dismissed at the end of the probation. We could do better—we had to do better. After nearly seven months of litigating the case---we respectfully declined this otherwise well-intentioned and reasonable offer. The reason we declined is two-fold. One, if he violates probation during the next year he could be found guilty. He could receive a “CWOF” or continued without a finding, which can be considered for many jobs as the equivalent of a guilty verdict since unlawful conduct is admitted. In the end, an already reasonable District Attorney agreed to pre-trial probation with conditions so this young man could truthfully admit he had never admitted to any criminal activity.
RESULT: Motion to SUPPRESS, FILED. CASE DISMISSED, with conditions of remaining in therapy and completing 50 hours of community service.

Possession with Intent to Distribute Class A, B & C Drugs, DISMISSED

August 8th 2013
Drug, Possession to Distribute Class A Chapter 94C Section 32A (a)
Drug, Possession to Distribute Class B Chapter 94C Section 32A (a)
Drug, Possession to Distribute Class C Chapter 94C Section 32A (a)
Client was under observation from police when he was stopped and arrested. According to police, they stopped Defendant and saw drugs in plain view on his car seat. The police searched the vehicle and located what they believed to be various drugs that were being prepared for distribution. The drugs that were allegedly intended to be distributed were thought by police to be Neurontin, Lexapro and Codeine. After nearly two years of litigating the case in court, a drug certification was provided to the Defendant, which stated that some of the drugs were in fact heroin. To add to the confusion, there was no chemist to testify as to the specific composition of the drugs at trial, which is almost always necessary for a conviction. At the day of trial, the Commonwealth was unable to secure the presence of the State Chemist. Attorney Barabino asked the court to dismiss the case as a result. The court, for various reasons, allowed the request for a dismissal. Case Closed.
RESULT: Possession with Intent to Distribute Class A, B & C Drugs, DISMISSED.

Restraining Order Violation, NOT GUILTY

June 27th 2013 

Violation of Abuse Prevention Order
Client was a young man with a supportive family. According to police, he contacted an ex-girlfriend after she properly obtained a no-contact restraining order against him. According to the court order presented in court—the Defendant was not to call or contact the victim. At trial, the young lady whom he was supposed to have no contact emotionally recalled him calling her after the order was obtained—a direct violation. After cross-examination, the Defendant rested his case and several hours later the jury returned a verdict of not-guilty. 

RESULT: Jury Verdict, NOT-GUILTY

Leave Scene of Property Damage, NO CRIMINAL COMPLAINT ISSUES, CASE DISMISSED

April 22nd 2013
Leave Scene of Property Damage Chapter 90, Section 24 (2)(a)
Client was a hard working professional with no prior criminal record. According to police, they received a report that client had hit another person with a vehicle and left the scene. Client had no recollection of making any contact with any other vehicle. In fact, his recollection was an out of control woman yelling at him while he was parked at a stoplight, which he ignored. Prior to the Defendant’s arraignment, Attorney Barabino filed a Motion to Dismiss with a memorandum of law. This motion was allowed and the matter was remanded back to a Clerk Magistrate’s Hearing at a later date. At the Magistrate’s Hearing, the Magistrate grilled the Defendant and sought yet an additional date to continue the hearing. At the second date, the state police and Clerk Magistrate both took notice of the Defendant’s lack of criminal history, the statements of the parties, and the insurance information declaring the woman was paid back all her out of pocket cost. The case was dismissed as a result. No record of the incident will appear on the client's record, anywhere.
RESULT: No Criminal Complaint Issues at Clerk Magistrate Hearing, CASE DISMISSED.

Leaving the Scene of Property Damage, DISMISSED

April 2nd 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.

Second Offense OUI, Negligent Operation of Motor Vehicle, Two Counts of Leaving the Scene of Personal Injury, License Suspended, ALL CHARGES NOT GUILTY

January 29th 2013
2nd OFFENSE OUI- Liquor or .08% Chapter 90 Section 24(1) (a) (1)
Negligent Operation of Motor Vehicle Chapter 90 Section 24(2)(a)
Leaving the Scene of Personal Injury Chapter 90 Section 24
Leaving the Scene of Personal Injury Chapter 90 Section 24
License Suspended, Operating Motor Vehicle with c90 §23
According to police, client was highly intoxicated, and the evidence of the intoxication was clear. According to eyewitnesses, client drove into two other vehicles and then ran off. Moments later, eyewitness confirmed to police that the Defendant was the operator of the motor vehicle. Once police confirmed that information they questioned client, who admitted that she was intoxicated and that she was the driver of the motor vehicle. Client failed the field sobriety test and once at the station agreed to take a Breathalyzer test, which concluded that she was twice (.16) the legal limit. After several witnesses testified, the jury at trial deliberated and returned a verdict of not guilty of all counts.
RESULT: ALL CHARGES NOT GUILTY AFTER TRIAL