» Drugs

Possession of Heroin, NO DRUG TESTING, NO FURTHER COURT DATES OR PROBATION RESTRICTIONS, NO FINDING OF GUILT

June 28, 2013
Possession of Class “A” Heroin
Client was seen purchasing drugs with another female. Once police saw this activity they noticed and observed even more incriminating behavior. They approached the vehicle the client and her friend were in, and when they did the police saw heroin in plain view in her hand. Also within plain view were items used to inject heroin. Client had a desire to bring the case to closure as quickly as possible, so Attorney Barabino negotiated a deal with the District Attorney that allowed her a one-year probation period with no guilty finding. In the end, the case would be dismissed after one year and the client did not have to appear again in court as she was given administrative probation and did not have to have any drug testing.
Result: NO DRUG TESTING, NO FURTHER COURT DATES OR PROBATION RESTRICTIONS, NO FINDING OF GUILT

Illegal Firearm Carrying, Unlawful Drug Possession, MOTION TO SUPPRESS ALLOWED, NO JAIL TIME, DRUG DISTRIBUTION DISMISSED

May 16, 2013
Firearm Carrying with Ammunition
Drug, Possession to Distribute
Client was a high school student who was being watched by the Lynn Gang Task Force. According to the police, they saw the client speaking with a high-ranking gang member who himself had been convicted of gun charges. Moments later, they arrested the client with a loaded .380 handgun in his pocket and seventeen ecstasy pills. He was charged with a number of offenses, including possession of a loaded firearm and drug distribution. Initially, the young man was charged as a juvenile, but soon after those charges were dismissed and he was recharged under the Youthful Offender Law. Under the Youthful Offender Law, he could be sentenced to state prison. Client was released from custody after posting a substantial bail. After nearly three years of various hearings, motions, and challenges to the evidence, the case moved closer to trial. Attorney Barabino suppressed one piece of evidence, which prevented the Commonwealth from using the defendant's statement that he was a member of the “CRIPS”. Once that was decided, a trial date was scheduled. At the trial date, all the Commonwealth's experts and the defense experts appeared as well as other witnesses. However, moments prior to the jury being selected, a deal was made that allowed the client not to serve any jail time. The defendant was placed on a suspended sentence with no jail time served. The drugs had been excluded by agreement as they had been tainted by the “Dookhan drug scandal”, so the drug charge was dismissed.
Result: After 1st Trial, Motion to Suppress, ALLOWED. NO JAIL TIME. Drug Distribution, DISMISSED.

Drug Possession Charges, Reckless Endangerment of a Child, CASE DISMISSED

March 15, 2013
Reckless Endangerment of Child
Drug, Possession Class B (Cocaine)
Possession of Class “A” Heroin
Possession of Class “E” Substance
Client was a hard-working waitress who had been associated with drug use and abuse for some time. On the above date, she was charged with possession of Class A, B, and E drugs and Reckless Endangerment of a Child. According to police, they received a 911 emergency call that two people were badly intoxicated, and they were consequently dispatched to investigate. Upon doing so, they saw a man who appeared to be intoxicated and the client who was seated in a vehicle. According to police, there was evidence they were about to shoot heroin with their child in the back seat. Attorney Barabino challenged the method and extraction of the client as unconstitutional and after hearing testimony, arguments being made, and supported case law asserted, the judge issued a decision, which allowed a Motion to Suppress Evidence. Since the evidence was excluded, the case was dismissed.
Result: Motion to Suppress, ALLOWED, CASE DISMISSED.

Illegal Drug Possession, MOTION TO SUPPRESS ALLOWED, CASE DISMISSED

December 3, 2012
Drug, Possession to Distribute Class D Chapter 94C Section 32C(a)
Client, a young man in high school, was charged with Distributing Marijuana. According to police, client was in a parking lot with another person, after hours, when police performed a well-being check. Once police arrived, they smelled the odor of pot and detected other suspicious behavior. Police made the defendant exit the vehicle and located several separate bags of pot in his pocket upon search, as well as nearly $500 in cash. The police arrested and charged the client, and Attorney Barabino began criminal representation with the client. An expert was hired with a specialty in drug distribution and several motions were filed to prepare for trial. Since it was expected that Attorney Barabino and the client would only accept a complete dismissal or a not guilty verdict, the case was litigated for nearly a year and a half. During one hearing, Attorney Barabino sought suppression of evidence and that request was allowed by the judge. With little expectation of success, the District Attorney simply dismissed the case. Attorney Barabino sought return of the client's so-called drug money, and the court agreed and allowed the motion to return his property.
Result: Motion to Suppress, ALLOWED, CASE DISMISSED.

Probation Violation, EXTENSION BUT WITH NO JAIL TIME AND NO CONVICTION

November 28, 2012
Probation Violation/Surrender Chapter 279 Section 3
Client was a college-educated professional already on probation for drug-related offenses. During her period of probation, it was alleged that she flipped a motor vehicle and left the scene. The police investigating the incident came to the conclusion that she was probably the operator of the motor vehicle, despite her repeated assertions that she was not. Moreover, the police charged her with filing a false police report since they didn’t believe her statement that the car was stolen. As a result, a probation violation was found. At the final hearing, a joint agreement was made to extend probation by six months so that she could keep her CWOF—meaning no conviction.
Result: Probation Extended with NO JAIL TIME AND NO CONVICTION.

Intent to Distribute, DISMISSED, Unlawful Drug Possession Charge, NOT GUILTY, School Zone Drug Violation, DISMISSED

June 29, 2012
Drug, Possession to Distribute Class A Chapter 94C Section 32A (a)
Unlawful Drug Possession Chapter 94C Section 34
Drug Violation Near School/Park Chapter 94C 32 J
Client was employed in the construction field and work was slow. According to the police, they saw the client (with whom they were familiar) pull behind another car that they were secretly watching. They observed the client’s passenger get out of the car and sell heroin to a young couple. The police were there at the right time and the right place. In fact, the group of officers observing the transaction was from the Special Response Team (SRT), which consisted of experienced, knowledgeable drug enforcement officers. Their hunch of illegal activity was correct—they witnessed a drug transaction. The police arrested all involved and the client was charged with possession of heroin, possession of heroin with intent to distribute, and possession with intent to distribute within a school zone. The last charge, intent to distribute within a school zone carries a two-year house of correction jail sentence. That two-year sentence is mandatory. When a charge is mandatory, that means no suspended sentence, house arrest, or probation—the person must go to a correctional facility for two years (eligible for parole after one year). For some “mandatory” charges there are provisions for a suspended sentence—but not with a “school zone charge”. The case proceeded through the court system for nearly a year. The other people that were arrested at the same time, called (co-defendants), were represented by other lawyers and admitted to guilt. Any admission of guilt for Attorney Barabino’s client was unacceptable—a decision he and his client made early on in the case. However, when prior to a hearing an offer of dismissing the school zone charge and the distribution charge and admitting to “sufficient facts” for the possession charge was proposed, the client was ready to agree to a deal. In addition, the client consented to forfeiting his nearly $1,000 in cash, which was located on his person. If he remains out of trouble for a year, his charge will be dismissed entirely.
Result: School Zone, DISMISSED, Intent to Distribute, DISMISSED, Possession Charge, NOT GUILTY.

1 2 Last »