» Hearing

October 29th 2018
FIRST OFFENSE OUI- Liquor or .08%
Open Container
Speeding
Marked Lanes Violation
Client, a young hard working-working professional was charged with Operating under the influence of Alcohol. In addition to the criminal charge she was given three separate "civil" citation(s) which included possessing an open container, speeding and marked lanes violation. According to Police in the early morning hours, client was speeding and weaving. She was found with a glass of beer, red bloodshot eyes and the smell of alcohol on her breath among other indicators of intoxication. Despite what appeared to be a strong case for the Government, she did have a strong defense. Despite the existence of this defense, client understandly, simply wanted to get the case wrapped up quickly, with the least cost and effort possible. As a result, Attorney Barabino was able to negotiate with the District Attorney a 1st offense disposition whereas, the charge will be dismissed after a one-year period. This is a fairly predictable result when the client has an otherwise clean record, no accident at the scene and no additional circumstances such as very high breath test result or disrespectful conduct to the officer. In addition to the 1st offense plea there was an agreement to dismiss all the "civil" infractions which is particularly important to avert an extended license suspension for the multiple surcharges which can result from civil infractions.
RESULT: 1st OFFENSE, 90/24D Disposition, Civil Infractions found NOT RESPONSIBLE.

August 30^th 2018
Negligent Operation of a Motor Vehicle
Speeding
Marked Lanes Violation
Failure to Stop
Client, a bank professional with no prior criminal record, was charged with the above criminal offenses. According to police, he was driving at speeds well over 100 miles per hour and failed to stop his vehicle when officers insisted that he do so. Attorney Barabino was hired, and at a Clerk Magistrate's hearing, Defendant himself testified and provided evidence to mitigate the circumstances of the incident in question. Defendant testified as to his clean criminal record, his clean Registry of Motor Vehicles (RMV) record, and his genuine remorse over what happened. As a result, no probable cause was found for the criminal violations and Defendant agreed to pay $400.
RESULT: NO PROBABLE CAUSE FOR CRIMINAL VIOLATIONS, Defendant pays $400.

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.

April 20^th 2017
Evading Taxi Fare
A Boston University Student was charged with evading a taxi fare. In this case, the fare was particularly large amount of nearly five hundred dollars. The police believed in good faith that the defendant intentionally evaded the fare, and brought a complaint before a clerk magistrate. Attorney Barabino reached out to all involved, got the fare payed, and at the hearing, client was found not responsible. Case dismissed.
RESULT: CASE DISMISSED.

April 10^th 2017
Leave Scene of Property Damage
Leave Scene of Property Damage
Unlicensed Operation of a Motor Vehicle
Client was working two full time jobs when he got into two separate car accidents. He did not remain on the scene, leaving for various reasons when he should not have. Fortunately, with adequate preparation time, client and Attorney Barabino were able to gather weather data for the date of the accident from the federal government, as well as work with the insurance companies to allow verification of the payment for damage. From this information, Attorney Barabino built a case with mitigation factors in place. A hearing was held and a decision was made that no probable cause issue—and the case did not proceed.
RESULT: NO PROBABLE CAUSE. CASE DOES NOT ISSUE.

January 5^th 2017
Criminal Procedure Rule 30: Post-Conviction Relief- New Trial
Drug, Possession Class B (Cocaine)
Client was a hard-working business owner and professional who sought to undo a past mistake. Years ago, after having been found guilty of possessing cocaine, he wanted to reverse that conviction. His contraband had been tested by a known, discredited lab chemist. The result was that a good faith basis to reverse the conviction was filed with an affidavit, memorandum, and certified supporting documentation. That package was filed with the court, and a hearing date was scheduled. In the interim, Attorney Barabino met with the District Attorney who was in agreement with his request. The Commonwealth did not file opposition. In the interest of justice, the motion for a new trial was allowed, and the case was dismissed.
RESULT: Motion for New Trial, ALLOWED, CASE DISMISSED.

October 28th 2016
Shoplifting by Asportation
Client was a young man who stole and was caught doing so. He admitted to doing what he did, but felt embarrassed and apologetic. Fortunately, he was given a clerk magistrate hearing. He hired Attorney Barabino, who took him to the hearing and acknowledged his wrongdoing and asked for consideration. The police and court determined that based on various factors that they would not issue the charges. No complaint to issue. Never appears on a record.
RESULT: NO COMPLAINT TO ISSUE

June 20^th 2016
Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon
Assault and Battery
Client was accused of fighting an adult and using a knife. Client claimed he defended himself and never possessed the knife. Opposing party called police first, so client targeted by police, using all recourses they had available. Those resources included detailed video interrogations, DNA analysis, fingerprint analysis, as well as out-of-court identification processes. After challenging the detailed and professional job of the prosecutor for nearly a year on various points, a motion to suppress the out of court identification was filed and a hearing date was set. At the hearing, the District Attorney agreed that the motion should be allowed and that it was dispositive to the case. Case Dismissed.
RESULT: ALL CHARGES DROPPED, MOTION TO SUPPRESS.