» Dismissal

December 17^th 2013
Resisting Arrest
Assault and Battery on a Police Office
Client, a hairdresser, had accumulated several criminal complaints against her, alleging she had committed several different crimes. In each case, the police alleged that the defendant was unruly and offensive to police when they arrived to respond to the 911 emergency calls. On one occasion, the defendant went into her home and refused to leave. When police asked her to step outside she, according to Police, pushed the officer from behind and used some profanity. When police began to arrest her, they claimed she required three cops to arrest her due to her violent nature and actions. Attorney Barabino and the defendant were comfortable in having a jury decide whether she intended to commit Assault and Battery on an Police Officer. However, at the trial date, it was unnecessary as the District Attorney simply dismissed the charge. Probation was allowed on the remaining charges and no jail time as a result.
RESULT: Assault and Battery on a Police Officer, DISMISSED. NO JAIL TIME ON OTHER CHARGE, RELEASED FROM CUSTODY.

December 5^th 2013
Malicious Destruction of Property
Malicious Destruction of Property
Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon
The defendant was at his home when police came and began an investigation into an allegation that he shot an elderly man with a BB gun, twice. When police interviewed the mother of defendant she declared that they were just out on the roof of their home shooting. Police recovered the BB gun and defendant and his mother made statements that were not helpful. Moreover, police had received other complaints of a similar nature the day before from this location, relating to the gun. A Motion to Suppress the statements made by the defendant's was filed. The judge allowed the defense's motion. After nearly a year, the case came to trial, and the limited evidence resulted in a full dismissal.
RESULT: Motion to Suppress Statements, ALLOWED, CASE DISMISSED AT TRIAL.

September 5^th 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.

August 8^th 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.

April 29th 2013
Motion to Seal Record Chapter
Attorney Barabino persuaded the judge to seal all records of this case. As a matter of law, client may now truthfully answer on any job application that he has never been arrested for, or charged with, any crime.
RESULT: Petition to Seal, ALLOWED.

March 20^th 2013
Possession of Class “A” Heroin Chapter 94C Section 34
Client was a very pleasant young woman from a great family. However, unknown to her family she had developed an addiction to heroin—a very powerful one for that matter. Attorney Barabino filed a rather obscure and rarely used IIIE statute. Under IIIE, if the Defendant acknowledges their addiction, enters and completes rehabilitation, the charge against them will be dropped. The court allowed the motion to be filed nearly a year ago and after one year of negative drug screens provided to the court, the case against the client was dismissed.
RESULT: Motion to Dismiss, ALLOWED, CASE DISMISSED.

March 5^th 2013
Disturbing the Peace Chapter 272 Section 53
Dangerous Weapon, Carry, Subsequent Offense Chapter 269 Section 10(B) & (D)
Client was a hard working electrician. He was charged with Disturbing the Peace and Possession of a Dangerous Weapon, Subsequent Offense. The second charge was required to be prosecuted in Superior Court and State Prison was mandatory upon conviction. However, the District Attorney allowed the case to remain in District Court and prosecuted it as a first offense. Attorney Barabino filed a Motion to Dismiss the charges in their entirety. The motion, complete with a lengthy memorandum of law and supporting affidavit, was provided to the court and a hearing was scheduled. After the motion, the court agreed that the motion should be allowed and the case dismissed. The District Attorney simply agreed to dismiss the Disturbing the Peace charge after the hearing.
RESULT: Motion to Dismiss ALLOWED, CASE DISMISSED.

December 13^th 2012
Leave Scene of Property Damage
Client was a hard working music teacher and single dad. According to police, he was in a parking lot and accidently hit another motor vehicle and purposely refused to stop. Client had no criminal history and an excellent driving record. The District Attorney’s main concern was that the other party being made whole and that they had no out-of-pocket expenses. Once that was confirmed, Prosecution simply dismissed the charge with a $200 court cost. Client was very pleased with end result. Case dismissed.
RESULT: Leaving the Scene of Property Damage, DISMISSED.