» Justice

February 12, 2014
Marked Lanes Violation
Operating Motor Vehicle with Suspended License
Client was a hard-working computer engineer who was stopped for a Marked Lanes Violation. When he was stopped for a marked lanes violation, the officer informed him that his license was suspended—a criminal offense. Attorney Barabino negotiated with the very reasonable and experienced Middlesex prosecutors, who after reviewing all the facts and the client's otherwise outstanding background, agreed to dismiss the charge of license suspension, with court costs, and find him not responsible for the civil infraction.
Result: Charge DISMISSED on Court Cost, Civil Infraction, NOT RESPONSIBLE.

January 21, 2014
Abuse Prevention Order
Client was a hard-working woman with no criminal record. According to police, her ex-lover said she violated a recent restraining order that was in place. Police could have mailed her a letter ordering her to court—but chose to arrest her instead while at her workplace. Humiliated about the workplace arrest and concerned about a possible criminal record, she and Attorney Barabino filed several motions to help her case, including a Motion to Dismiss. That motion had a legal memorandum outlining the reasons and justification for the court to order dismissal. The court arranged for a hearing date, and today, after a hearing had been previously held nearly two months ago, the court entered a formal dismissal in her favor, outlining the reasons for the motion to be allowed. Case dismissed.
Result: Motion to Dismiss, FILED, ALLOWED, CASE DISMISSED.

December 3, 2013
Assault and Battery
Client was a young, educated artist from India who came to the United States with her new husband. Shortly after the marriage, the husband made frequent and repeated monetary demands of the defendant and her family. He alleged that the demands were simply an extension of the dowry, or gift-giving, in their country's custom. However, when she refused to provide more gifts, he filed for divorce and slammed her with a restraining order. He also claimed that she assaulted and battered him. Then he made attempts to obtain an abused spouse/domestic violence visa from law enforcement, which would have accelerated his own green card application. Then he obtained a restraining order after providing the court with a summary of private conversations that the defendant had with her family that were (accidentally) recorded by her while he was at work. Attorney Barabino was retained after the defendant discharged her prior attorney. When Attorney Barabino took over the case, he restarted the case from its beginning. He hired a forensic computer expert to examine the contents of the unconsented recordings. At the same time, he filed a Criminal Cross Complaint against the alleged victim. Time was of the essence since the defendant was on a time-sensitive schedule, which could have resulted in her being deported prior to her case being brought to trial. Negotiations resulted in an agreement for a postponed dismissal of the charge. No immigration consequences as well for the defendant.
Result: Cross Complaint FILED, CASE DISMISSED in One Year, NO ADMISSION OF ANY EVIDENCE OR WRONGDOING, NO FEES, NO FINES.

October 22, 2013
False Report of Motor Vehicle Theft
Client was a young, college-educated professional who was charged with falsifying a stolen motor vehicle report. Although the young woman had been in previous entanglements with the law, she did not have a criminal record. If she were to be found guilty of this charge, she would be a convicted felon. The consequences would be disastrous. After moving the case through the court for nearly a year and a half, the trial date arrived. At trial, there was an option for a deal that became acceptable for the District Attorney, which included a reduction in the charge, as long as the young woman were to engage in therapy, remain drug- and alcohol-free with random screens, and pay a monthly fee to the court. The result of this disposition gave the defendant a chance to prove herself, remain an employed and productive member of society, while moving forward with her life drug-free. A win-win for all involved.
Result: CHARGE REDUCED, 12 MONTH CONDITIONAL PROBATION, DISMISSAL at End of Year.

August 8, 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 the 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. On 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.

May 8, 2013
Malicious Destruction of Property Chapter
Client, a junior in high school, faced two potential complaints of Malicious Destruction of Property Over $250.00. The police alleged that the client became angry and upset about being blamed for something he was not involved in. When the client became angry, it was alleged that he went to a young woman’s home and threw large rocks at the home, damaging the foundation. Moreover, it was alleged that he damaged the motor vehicle at that same home, with a cost of over $250.00. Both charges are felonies. Today, at the clerk's hearing, Attorney Barabino persuaded the assistant clerk magistrate, with the assent of cooperative, professional, and understanding law enforcement, to hold the complaint open for ninety days. As long as the client performed restitution, the case would be dismissed without ever appearing on the client's criminal record.
Result: Application for Complaint, DISMISSED.

March 29, 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 to 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 smelled 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's request. The judge simply placed the defendant on probation with a brief 14-day inpatient program. All the civil violations 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

March 20, 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 c. 111E statute. Under c. 111E, 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.