» Judge

Assault and Battery, Reckless Endangerment of a Child, Intimidation of a Witness, DISMISSED

February 21st 2017
Intimidation of a Witness
Assault and Battery with Serious Injury
Reckless Endangerment of a Child
Assault and Battery
Assault and Battery
Assault and Battery
Assault and Battery on a Pregnant Person
Client was a hardworking married professional. According to police, he had abused his wife over a period of several years. Most recently, the police claimed that he stabbed her hand with a knife. She was injured in such a way that her hand required surgery. The Defendant was held without bail, pursuant to the Dangerous Statute (58A). After the 58A hearing was held, Attorney Barabino was retained. Attorney Barabino sought to have the prior judge reconsider a prior decision and that decision was reversed. However, the defendant was indicted on all counts. After litigating the case for nearly a year, a motion to dismiss the charges was filed. In or about the same date, a non-binding marital privilege entered. Eventually, a decision was made by the District Attorney to Nolle Prosse -which means to dismiss the charges and close the case with no admission or wrongdoing of any criminal act.
RESULT: Motion to Dismiss filed, CASE DISMISSED, Martial Privilege.

Negligent Operation, CONDITIONAL DISMISSAL AFTER 90 DAYS

June 8th 2016
Negligent Operation of Motor Vehicle
A retired teacher was accused of negligently operating a motor vehicle. There were four separate witnesses, including a police officer that witnessed the motor vehicle crash. The witnesses were not helpful to the defendant. A plea was made before the judge asking for ninety-days probation. The District Attorney sought slightly more probation time. In the end, the judge sided with Attorney Barabino and allowed the defendant’s case to be dismissed, as long as she stays out of trouble, for a ninety-day period—otherwise called a continued without a finding or (CWOF).
RESULT: Case to be DISMISSED AFTER 90 DAYS, with NO CONVICTION ON RECORD. Enroll in two safety driver courses.

First offense OUI, Same Day PLEA, Open Container, NOT RESPONSIBLE

June 1st 2016
1st OFFENSE OUI- Liquor or .08%
Marked Lanes Violation
Client was a young man who was having substantial substance abuse issues. He was in a motor vehicle accident and was clearly intoxicated. As client resided out of state, Attorney Barabino arranged for probation to be transferred and negotiated with the district attorney to resolve the matter on the same day as arraignment. No restitution needed to be paid. Not responsible on the civil citation determined. At the plea hearing, the judge sided with Attorney Barabino and granted the defendant a Continuance Without a Finding (CWOF), allowing the case to be dismissed. No drug or alcohol screens. All in same day.
RESULT: Same day PLEA, out of state OUI-alcohol, open container, NOT RESPONSIBLE

Class "D" Intent to Distribute, DISMISSED, Conspiracy, DISMISSED

May 4th 2015
Drug, Possession Class D (Weed), Distribute
Conspiracy to Violate Drug Law
According to police, while on patrol in a high-crime area, they noticed what they believed to be a drug transaction. They produced a lengthy police report, which detailed their observations. The officers based their actions on a hunch and that hunch proved to be correct. An attempt to dismiss the case suppressing evidence as an illegal search was surprisingly unsuccessful. However, Attorney Barabino and client moved on. After viewing the scene with client, reviewing the evidence in the possession of the government, and preparing witnesses, a trial date was set. The government had an admission of wrongdoing from the defendant, a quarter pound of weed (individually bagged and others empty bags), a scale, and a little more than two hundred dollars as evidence. Despite appearing ready at the first trial date, the Commonwealth was not ready. As a sanction, the judge said at the next date they must appear ready. On the second date, they were unable to answer ready and the judge agreed to dismiss the case.
RESULT: Class “D” Intent to Distribute, DISMISSED, Conspiracy DISMISSED.

Larceny Charges, Shoplifting, NO FELONY CONVICTION, CONDITIONAL ADMINISTRATIVE PROBATION ALLOWED

September 25th 2014
Larceny over $250.00
Larceny over $250.00
Larceny over $250.00
Shoplifting
Larceny under $250.00
Larceny under $250.00
Client was pursuing his Masters in Business Administration (MBA) out of state. Prior to him enrolling in his program, he had been employed at Nordstrom’s department store. While employed at the store, he became involved with several others in taking items from the store that didn’t belong to them. The arrangement was complex, so the investigation was consequentially extensive and detailed. The charges were, in part, felonies, which was simply unacceptable for someone who intended to have a future as a professional. The District Attorney sought guilty convictions. Attorney Barabino brought the matter before a judge and the judge agreed with Attorney Barabino. Client convictions would be dismissed if defendant were to pay back the $4800.00 within eighteen months. Also, the court allowed defendant's probation to be administrative so he would not have to physically appear in the courthouse and could leave to attend his out of state MBA program.
RESULT: NO FELONY CONVICTION, Upon Completion of Probation, ADMINISTRATIVE PROBATION ALLOWED.

Malicious Destruction of Property, Assault and Battery, MOTION TO SUPPRESS ALLOWED, CASE DISMISSED AT TRIAL

December 5th 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.

Motion to Seal Record, ALLOWED

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.

Leaving the Scene of Property Damage, DISMISSED

April 2nd 2013
Leave Scene of Property Damage Chapter 90, Section 24 (2)(a)
Client was a father and hardworking employee of the US Postal Service. According to police, he drove his vehicle in an erratic manner causing an accident. After the accident, they alleged that Defendant drove away without giving his information to the other driver as required by law. After consultation and review Attorney Barabino and client sought a trial date with the expectation that a not guilty verdict would be the result. However, when the accuser failed to show up for trial, Attorney Barabino simply requested that the matter be dismissed, to which the judge agreed. Case Dismissed.
RESULT: Leaving the Scene of Property Damage, DISMISSED.

Leaving the Scene of Property Damage, NOT GUILTY, Second Offense OUI, ALL CIVIL VIOLATIONS NOT RESPONSIBLE

March 29th 2013
Leave Scene of Property Damage Chapter 90, Section 24 (2)(a)
2nd OFFENSE OUI- Liquor or .08% Chapter 90 Section 24(1) (a) (1)
According to police, client had rammed into a vehicle and left the scene of the accident. Police responded to the scene and immediately noticed, while on patrol, that the client's vehicle had damage similar that that which would be described. When police pulled the vehicle over they noticed paint matched the vehicle that was hit. They also noticed paint on the other vehicle and noticed that it matched as well. The police spoke to client and stated that his speech was slurred; he had to hold on to the side of the truck for balance; his eyes were bloodshot and glassy; his breath smelt like booze; and he was unsteady on his feet. Moreover, the client had Budweiser cans opened and unopened, strewn throughout the vehicle. Client simply wanted to gain his license back, but the District Attorney of Essex County sought jail time instead. The Commonwealth presented five separate witnesses. At sentencing, the DA requested this hard working single father be sent to prison for two years suspended and serve a full year committed in jail. In the end, the judge agreed with Attorney Barabino and denied the Commonwealth request. Judge simply placed the Defendant on probation with a brief 14 day-impatient program. All the civil violation were found not responsible and the verdict on the Leaving the Scene was a clear and resounding "not guilty".
RESULT: Leaving the Scene of Property Damage, NOT GUILTY AFTER TRIAL, All Civil Violations found NOT RESPONSIBLE. NO JAIL FOR OUI CHARGE

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

March 15th 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 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 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 would be dismissed. Case dismissed.
RESULT: Motion to Suppress, ALLOWED, CASE DISMISSED.