» Justice

May 10, 2016
Conspiracy to Violate Drug Law
Intimidation of a Witness
According to jail security, client, who was an inmate, was involved in a scheme to have drugs brought into the jail. He was a target because he had been involved in drug dealing before. The case was developed with great detail by the investigators. They assembled recordings of phone calls, collected physical evidence, and found a participating co-conspirator to admit to the scheme. Then yet another co-conspirator admitted to the scheme. The drugs were sent to a laboratory for testing and were positive and the case was almost ready for trial. As the case proceeded, one of the four co-conspirators pleaded out to a sentence; then a second co-conspirator admitted his guilt and then another pleaded guilty. Only Attorney Barabino’s client remained, who had no such intention to plead guilty. Although he had been involved with drugs in the past, he was not guilty and was not going to admit to being so. Soon after, a separate hearing on a motion to suppress the identification was held to preserve his rights moving forward, and a trial date was set. The day of trial came and the required co-conspirator to prove the crime did not appear and the case was dismissed in full.
Result: All Charges DROPPED/DISMISSED

January 11, 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—an assumption that was correct. Client had been drinking before 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 opportunity. 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.

November 18, 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 of a pound of marijuana, cash, and a scale, Attorney Barabino was ready for trial. Moments before the trial began, Attorney Barabino agreed to a deal with the Commonwealth that would dismiss the Conspiracy charge, reduce the possession-with-intent-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.

November 16, 2015
Firearm Carrying with Ammunition
Firearm Carrying Without a License
The defendant was a passenger in his mother's car when it was pulled over by Massachusetts State Police. When State Police noticed he wasn’t wearing a seat belt, they wrote him a citation. When they wrote him a citation, they noticed he had active warrants. The police testified that when the defendant provided his license to police, they noticed that he slid a small black pistol in between the seats. After the defendant was arrested the police located and secured a small black revolver. After a motion to suppress, the case was set for trial. Ballistics experts, fingerprint experts, and various witnesses were called. The coordination was tedious, but all the pieces needed to be in place for the trial to begin. After five separate trial dates, the court dismissed the case, without prejudice. However, if the case is brought back to court, Attorney Barabino can move to dismiss the charges for failure to comply with time standards.
Result: DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE ON ALL CHARGES. Upon re-applying for charges in future, Motion to DISMISS to be considered by court.

November 4, 2015
Negligent Operation of Motor Vehicle
Marked Lanes Violation
License not in Possession
A young man had swerved off the road and struck a telephone pole. It was a single-car accident and police responded quickly and professionally. Client was transported to the hospital with injury. After two court dates and consultation with the District Attorney, a disposition was entered with the court. The result was an agreed-upon dismissal in 90 days' time. Also, an entry of not responsible was entered on the Marked Lanes Violation as well—an otherwise additional small victory that prevented a surcharge and points against his insurance.
Result: As long as Client remains arrest-free for ninety (90) days and enrolls in a half-day program called “Brains-at-Risk” this case to be DISMISSED. Client ADMITS TO NOTHING and still retains the PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE.

September 11, 2015
OUI - Liquor or .08%
Client was a hard-working hairstylist and single mother. According to police, she drove while under the influence of alcohol. This case presented a variety of legal issues. Those included conflicting statements by the accused and a parking clerk who stated that she could barely stand. Police officers testified accurately that the accused performed her sobriety test in “less than ideal” conditions and had zero problems with at least one test. In the end, the jury could not reach a verdict. In any criminal trial, all the jurors must agree that the accused is “guilty” beyond a reasonable doubt of the crime charged or “not guilty”. Generally, an agreement is reached, one way or the other. Sometimes that agreement takes longer than expected. In this case, the jury was deadlocked and simply could not agree. In the end, the parties agreed to a “Rodriguez” charge, which means that the judge is giving them one more opportunity to come to an agreement. Here, the instruction was given, but in the end, the jurors simply could not agree and the court ruled the matter a mistrial. During the retrial, the case was tried again and the witness/employee of the parking garage had an even different version of the events than before. On that date, the jury reached a quick and decisive decision with a brief deliberation and returned a verdict of not guilty.
Result: JURY FINDS DEFENDANT NOT GUILTY.

May 19, 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, on 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.

August 7, 2014
Indecent Assault and Battery Child Under 14
Assault and Battery
Assault and Battery
Client was charged with kissing an eleven-year-old on the lips and assaulting and beating her as well as assaulting and beating his pregnant girlfriend. As the case was moving through the court system, he was once again charged for assaulting and beating his girlfriend. Via a Martins Hearing, those secondary charges were dropped, leaving the remaining sex-related charge and the remaining assault and battery to argue. The girlfriend had been adamant that nothing physical occurred when she was interviewed by police and kept that position right up to the day of trial. On the day of trial, the young woman who was the complainant of the sex charge did not appear for court and the girlfriend who was now the defendant’s wife asserted her marital privilege, leaving the cases dismissed. The sex charge would have required sex offender registration with the sex offender registry, but since it was dismissed, that will never occur. All charges dismissed.
Result: ALL CHARGES DROPPED. CASES DISMISSED. NO SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION.