» Dismissal

Assault and Battery, DISMISSED

April 7th 2016
Assault and Battery
Client was a hard working painter and father to two beautiful children. He also was a long time spouse to equally pleasant woman. When he suspected she was texting a male friend, he took a glass of milk and drenched her in it. He lost his cool and he readily admitted it. There was no marriage waiver to enlist and there was no Fifth Amendment to invoke, so she was summoned to trial. At trial, the defendant's partner was interviewed by the victim witness advocate and the District Attorney. She was adamant that she was not going to participate with this prosecution. The prosecution simply agreed to dismiss the charge in its entirety, moments before the day of trial.
RESULT: Assault and Battery, DISMISSED

Domestic Assault and Battery, DISMISSAL

January 12th 2016
Domestic Assault and Battery
Client was a hard working nurse, wife, and mother. According to witnesses, she drank a bit too much and slapped her husband several times. Department of Children and Family Services were called but declined to investigate further. At arraignment, Commonwealth sought random alcohol screens and Attorney Barabino argued they were not necessary as a condition of release. The court agreed with Attorney Barabino, and the case was dismissed at trial with a marital privilege exception.
RESULT: DISMISSAL

Marked Lanes, NOT RESPONSIBLE, Negligent Operation, DISMISSED

January 11th 2016
Second Offense OUI- Liquor or .08%
Disorderly Conduct
Negligent Operation of a Motor Vehicle
Marked Lanes Violation
Client was stopped by police after hitting the fence of a police station. Police determined that the smell on his breath, unsteadiness and related factors were sufficient to arrest -assumption was correct. Client before had been drinking and was surprised to realize his level of intoxication was as high as it was. The biggest factor for client was accepting responsibility and getting a license back at the earliest possibility. Attorney Barabino and client were able to negotiate no jail time. Not responsible on Marked Lanes Violation. Negligent Operation Dismissed.
RESULT: Alternative No Jail Disposition, Marked Lanes, NOT RESPONSIBLE, Negligent Operation, DISMISSED.

Illegal Drug Possession, CHARGE DISMISSED, Conspiracy, REDUCED AND DISMISSED AFTER 21 DAYS PROBATION

November 18th 2015
Drug, Possession to Distribute Class D
Conspiracy
Client was a high school student and charged with Conspiracy to Distribute Marijuana and a separate charge of Possession with Intent to Distribute. After a previous dismissal, he found himself back at the same court for trial. With nearly a fourth a pound of marijuana, cash, and a scale, we were ready for trial. Moments before the trial began we agreed to a deal with the Commonwealth that would dismiss the Conspiracy charge, reduce the possession to distribute charge to simple possession, and dismiss the simple possession charge after a 21-day probation.
RESULT: CHARGE DISMISSED. SECOND CHARGE REDUCED AND DISMISSED AFTER PROBATION OF 21 DAYS. NO CONDITIONS.

Possession of Heroin, SUPPRESSION HEARING SUCCESSFUL, MOTION TO DISMISS ALLOWED, CHARGE FORMALLY DISMISSED

October 5th 2015
Possession of Heroin
According to police, client was acting suspiciously and coordinating a drug deal. After monitoring some observations, police stopped a vehicle he was traveling in. What occurred after the stop was, according to Attorney Barbaino, an illegal search and seizure. When an illegal search and seizure occurs, the next step is to make a formal challenge to the government. As can been seen and as is done in each case that this occurs, Attorney Barabino drafts and files a motion and memorandum of law detailing his claims. A date is set to bring in the officers to court to challenge the process of the arrest and drug discovery and the judge reviews the testimony. Occasionally, the judge will make his decision right after the hearing. In this case, the judge tendered a very well written, detailed finding. The result of his finding was that Attorney Barabino’s motion to suppress would be allowed. And since the drugs could not be used as evidence in the case, the result was that the matter would be dismissed. The Commonwealth had an administrative review of 30 days to decide whether to appeal. However, in this case, like most, the case would simply be dismissed on the day the defendant returns to court.
RESULT: Suppression Hearing, SUCCESSFUL, Motion to Dismiss, ALLOWED. Client returns to court for formal DISMISSAL OF THE CHARGE.

Assault and Battery, DISMISSED

August 10th 2015
Assault and Battery
A retired, married client with no previous record was accused of assault and battery on his wife. There had been recent tension in the marriage and an argument became slightly physical with unpermitted touching. No injuries or marks. The touching was brief and modest. After several court dates and a full evaluation of the evidence collected, the Commonwealth agreed that there was no case if the wife asserted her marital privilege. On today's date, she asserted that right and the case was dismissed.
RESULT: Charge of Assault and Battery, DISMISSED

Drug Possession Charges DISMISSED

July 5th 2015
Drug, Possession to Distribute Class B
Drug, Possession to Distribute Class B
Drug, Possession to Distribute Class B
Drug, Possession to Distribute Class C
Drug, Possession to Distribute Class E
Drug, Possession to Distribute Class C
Client was a young engineer involved with drugs. While under the influence, a young lady friend came over his home. She stayed at his home as a guest and tragically she passed away during the night as a result of a drug overdose. The defendant found her unresponsive and called police without hesitation. His attempts at first aid were valiant but unsuccessful. When police arrived to the home in response to the 911 calls they noticed various drugs in plain view. Those drugs included Morphine, Methadone, Suboxone, Klonopin, Gabapentin and Clonidine. There was enough in the view of police of each drug to charge distribution of the drugs. The police demonstrated a high level of expertise, professionalism, and sophistication. Their expertise was clear as they quickly noticed the necessity of applying for a search warrant for the drugs and conducting interviews and interrogations with proper rights administrated. In the end, the case moved through the court for nearly two years. As the case was close to trial, the District Attorney reduced the Class “A” charge to simple possession. That developed an opening to file a motion to dismiss not only that charge but also the remaining charges under the more recent law protecting people against being charged for possession of drugs when they call for help for people experiencing an overdose. The motion was filed. A hearing date was set. District Attorney stated his anticipated intend of dismissing the charges. On the day of the hearing, the case is dismissed in its entirety.
RESULT: Motion to Dismiss, FILED, CASES DISMISSED.

Failure to Register, CONDITIONAL DISMISSAL

June 24th 2015
Failure to Register as a Sex Offender
Client made several mistakes nearly ten years prior. Those mistakes led him to be listed as a sex offender, with all the requirements of registration. He had several children and was a law abiding person working many hours to maintain stability for his family. According to police, he made mistakes on his registration and was charged with failure to register as a sex offender. The investigation into defendant was very sophisticated and intensive. The police tracked the defendant to locations outside of his hometown and took photographs. Police applied for an received a search warrant for a GPS tracking device for his motor vehicle. Police also installed a hidden motion detector on a telephone pole at a fixed location, among conducting other investigative techniques. They also secured an videotaped admission from the defendant. After an exhaustive review of the thousands of pieces of evidence, Attorney Barabino filed a motion to suppress, with a lengthy memorandum of law. On that day, prior to the hearing, the judge, who would also allow defendant to admit to the allegation, took an agreed tender that if defendant stays out of legal trouble for about a year and one half, the charge would be dismissed. This disposition is called a Continued Without a Finding or “CWOF”. The probation is administrative, so client does not have to appear at the probation department.
RESULT: Motion to Dismiss, FILED, PLEA Entered and if Abides by Probation Terms Case will be DISMISSED.

Drug Possession, DISMISSED

May 19th 2015
Drug, Possession Class A, Subsequent Offense
According to police, they arrived at a local McDonald's bathroom to find the accused under the influence of a drug and with brown bags of powder and a needle. According to police, he admitted that he had taken heroin. The Commonwealth made an attempt to obtain medical records to support the charge, but after a hearing, that was denied. Also, the commonwealth was unable to obtain a drug certification certificate from the state crime lab. As a result, at the day of trial, they simply withdrew the prosecution. The court and its staff along with the District Attorney were professional, competent, and classy. In the end, the case was withdrawn from prosecution. In essence, Dismissed.
RESULT: Class “A” Possession, SUBSEQUENT OFFENSE, DISMISSED.

Motion to Suppress Identification, ALLOWED

March 18th 2015
Larceny by Single Scheme
Credit Card False over 250
Identity Fraud
Client was a polite, bright young man who had a drug problem. According to police, he was involved in several schemes to defraud people. First, gaining access to their credit cards and eventually using those credit cards for exorbitant purchases. Police investigated and made an identification of his co-defendant. Attorney Barabino sought an evidentiary hearing, filing a motion with the court with a supporting legal memorandum outlining the reasons why the court should not permit the “I.D.” to be allowed, since it was suggestive. The court agreed. The motion to exclude the ‘I.D.” was allowed and little evidence remained in the case for the prosecution. After nearly a year of preparation, the case resulted in a dismissal.
RESULT: Motion to Suppress Identification, ALLOWED. CASE DISMISSED.