» Defense

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.

February 1^st 2018
Assault and Battery OVER 60/Disabled
Client was a Doctor of Research at a Pharmaceutical company when a family member suddenly struck him hard. He responsibly called the police to notify them of what occurred. However, after speaking to the person that struck him, the police determined that he was the aggressor and arrested him for this felony offense instead. Attorney Barabino prepared for trial confident in the innocence of his client and the strength of his case despite the severe consequences of a potential conviction--client would certainly lose his prosperous employment, be deported and separated from his wife and children (as he was on a “green card”), and possibly serve prison time as a convicted felon. At the day of trial, Commonwealth was unable to proceed as a necessary witness was unavailable, and Attorney Barabino requested that the court dismiss the charges. Dismissal was subsequently entered.
RESULT: CASE DISMISSED AT DAY OF TRIAL.

June 9^th 2017
Lawrence District Court
Assault with a Dangerous Weapon
Client was a hard-working, self-employed IT consultant who was accused of spray painting political signs. The case was widely publicized and the accusation was that client was painting the signs during the early hours of the morning. Moreover, it was alleged that client tried to run over accuser, who spotted the client engaging in the spray painting, when she attempted to flee. While the client admitted to spray painting the signs, the part about running over the client was not true. A deal was attempted, to which the client would admit to the sign painting and complete fifty hours of community service and stay out of trouble for one year. However, the accusation of attempting to run over the accuser went to trial. Attorney Barabino presented reputation witnesses and others to build the defense. In the end, the court delivered a verdict of not guilty of assault with a dangerous weapon.
RESULT: NOT GUILTY OF ASSAULT WITH A DANGEROUS WEAPON.

March 28^th 2017
Assault and Battery
Assault and Battery
Strangulation or Suffocation
Client was a hardworking federal employee. He was charged with Strangulation of his ex-girlfriend, Assault and Battery on his Girlfriend, and Assault and Battery on another involved in the incident in question. It was alleged that he was angry at his ex-girlfriend after discovering text messages from her former spouse on her phone. It was alleged that he came into her bedroom, pushed her friend into a dresser, and then proceeded to choke ex-girlfriend for nearly a minute. The district attorney applied for and received a Dangerous Hearing. Based on facts of the case, it was determined that client was too dangerous to be released into society. Attorney Barabino appealed that ruling and was successful. Client was then released pending trial. At trial, the jury ruled him not guilty of all the charges.
RESULT: 58A DANGEROUS HEARING OVERTURNED, Client released Pending Trial, NOT GUILTY OF ALL CHARGES.

March 15^th 2017
Animal Cruelty
Animal Cruelty
Client was a hardworking father of four, with some criminal history. His roommates believed that he was abusing a dog shared with client, based on the dog’s recent behavior. The Police Department charged the defendant with Cruelty to Animals, based on video evidence provided by his roommates. Roommates filmed the Defendant kicking one dog multiple times and striking another dog with his hand. The case eventually went to trial. On day of trial, Attorney Barabino negotiated an offer for nearly half of the committed time previously offered, with a stay.
RESULT: LESS COMMITTED TIME ON PLEA.

July 7^th 2016
Deface Property
Client was a hard-working rug maker who had recently suffered immense hardships. Those hardships culminated in him developing a severe alcohol problem. After he drank one time, he took out his aggression on a neighbors’ vehicle, breaking the glass. His legal concerns included penalties, immigration consequences, and a criminal record. After a few court dates, an investigation, and consultation with the very responsive district attorney office, an agreement was made to allow the case to be dismissed, as long as any out of pocket cost were paid.
RESULT: Deface Property, DISMISSED, In three months, NO ADMISSION TO WRONGDOING.

April 8^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. 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.
RESULT: Rodriguez “Blow Out” Charge, HUNG JURY, RETRIAL TO BE DETERMINED.

August 19^th 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.