» Justice

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.

November 24, 2012
Unlicensed Operation of a Motor Vehicle Chapter 90 Section 10
Inspection Sticker Chapter 90 Section 20
Alcohol in Motor Vehicle, Possession Open Container Chapter 90 Section 24I
Client was an out-of-state resident who was driving in Massachusetts without a license. He was stopped by police and charged with various offenses. According to the police report, the client was stopped initially due to his lack of a Massachusetts license, a criminal offense. Once he was stopped, he was charged with other crimes. Attorney Barabino reviewed all the reports and ticketing information processed by police for this arrest. Upon a thorough review, he determined the tickets issued by police were not in compliance with required regulations. As a result of the police not following the proper requirements, he filed a Motion to Dismiss, along with a lengthy memorandum of law. The court held a hearing to listen to the legal arguments presented by Attorney Barabino, and at the conclusion of the hearing the judge allowed Attorney Barabino's Motion to Dismiss the three charges.
Result: Motion to Dismiss, ALLOWED. ALL THREE CHARGES DISMISSED.

November 8, 2012
Operating to Endanger Chapter 90 Section 24
Client was an out-of-state college student who was charged with Operating to Endanger. According to police, client was driving in the early morning hours when he drove through a stop sign and into several parked motor vehicles, causing over $100,000 of damage to two vehicles, a motorcycle, and a portion of a home. In the end, the application for complaint was dismissed.
Result: Application for Complaint, DISMISSED.

October 9, 2012
Attempt to Commit Crime Chapter 274 Section 6
Disorderly Conduct Chapter 272 Section 53
Client, a retired airline employee, was charged with attempting to commit a crime and disorderly conduct. According to police, the client had entered the hallway of an apartment building and repeatedly struck the door with her foot. The occupant watched this occur through her peephole and after increased concern, she called police. Police then stopped the defendant down the street from the apartment complex. When interviewed by them, the client gave conflicting accounts of what occurred and she was arrested for attempting to break into the apartment and disorderly conduct. At trial, the District Attorney attempted to modify the complaint to reflect a subsequent charge of disorderly conduct since she had been convicted before this date in a separate incident. The judge denied that request and the client ultimately passed no time in jail for that charge. After trial, the evidence of the witnesses failed to support a charge of breaking and entering and the client was acquitted.
Result: Not guilty of Attempt to Commit a Crime Charge, Disorderly Conduct Charge filed for a period of two months.

August 2, 2012
Assault and Battery Chapter 265 Section 15
According to police, the client and her boyfriend had called police twice in one night. The first time police spoke with both the client and her boyfriend and left the home—assured that no further commotion would occur. When police were called to the home a second time, they noticed that the boyfriend had marks and scrapes that were not visible before. The police then made inquiry of the client and after doing so were satisfied that she was the aggressor. As a result, they charged her with assault and battery. As a non-citizen, a dismissal was essential and an acquittal had to be obtained. At trial, the boyfriend became “unavailable” as a result of a Fifth Amendment hearing, ultimately resulting in a dismissal of the charge.
Result: Fifth Amendment of Witness at Trial Results in Assault and Battery Charge DISMISSED

May 24, 2012
Assault and Battery Chapter 265 Section 15?
Breaking and Entering in the Nighttime for Felony Chapter 266 Section 16
Vandalize Property Chapter 266 Section 126A
Intimidation of a Witness Chapter 268 Section 13b
Assault with a Dangerous Weapon Chapter 265 Section 15B
Client was a laid off manufacturing employee who had a rocky relationship with his daughter’s mother. According to police and his police record, the client has been accused of assaulting her in the past. In fact, she and her child were placed in a residential location paid for via the Commonwealth based on her alleged fear of the client. On this occasion, daughter's mother claimed that the client was able to locate her from an unknown source and when he knocked on her door he pushed himself in the room. Once inside the room, he held her down on the bed and punched her twice in the face. After this struggle, the report stated that he broke two telephones and assaulted her child. Once over, he left the premises and she, exhausted and out of breath, called 911. She informed the police of what had occurred and they placed a warrant out for the client's arrest. Once arrested, a separate hearing was requested from the District Attorney’s office called a 58A. The purpose of the 58A was to see if bail should even be a consideration in this case. The District Attorney was successful and the client was detained until trial. Attorney Barabino and his client had one alternative for the District Attorney to consider. That was drop all the charges or fill in the jury box. No deal was reached. Defense knew that what the alleged victims had told police could be defended in court and there was another story to be told. At the day of trial, Attorney Barabino and his client rejected all offers for a deal. However, as the trial was moments away from beginning, there was one offer the client could not say no to. The offer was to drop five of the six charges in their entirety and the one charge of assault and battery to continue without a finding, which simply means that if the client completes the term of probation the one charge will be dismissed.
Result: FIVE OUT OF SIX CHARGES DROPPED. CONDITIONAL DISMISSAL OF MISDEMEANOR.

May 14, 2012
Abuse Prevention Order Chapter 209A
Client was a hard-working and all-around easy-going single dad trying his best to be a father to his young daughter, with whom his ex had custody. His ex went to police one day stating she was in fear of serious imminent harm since the client (she alleged) threatened her. At the 10-day hearing, client's ex-girlfriend reasserted all the claims she had made before and stated others such as their daughter came home with a bruised cheek and a chipped tooth. Attorney Barabino had both his client testify and his client's mother---both of whom provided documentation to the court, which included text messages and police reports. The judge credited both of Attorney Barabino’s witnesses and as a result vacated the restraining order in its entirety.
Result: Ten-day Hearing Outcome Results in Favor of Client, RESTRAINING ORDER VACATED.

April 4, 2012
Drug, Possession to Distribute Class A
Drug Violation Near School/Park
Client was a hard-working tattoo artist who was charged with Possession with Intent to Distribute Heroin within a school zone. The school zone charge is a minimum-mandatory sentence of two years in a house of correction. The police alleged that they came into his home and viewed numerous drug-dealing equipment and unsold heroin. The client had had a search warrant served on his premises merely a week before, and the police were eager to make a bust. In this case, the police received a 911 call that an assault took place at the premises and used that as part of their authority to enter the home of the client. When they entered the home, they did not have a warrant, but did receive permission from roommates—but not enough permission to make the search legal. As a result, after nearly a year of litigating the case, Attorney Barabino along with the other co-defendants placed the case on for a Motion to Suppress the evidence that was recovered from police. The goal was to suppress the evidence (or throw out) all the drugs and drug dealing equipment from being used at trial as proof against defendants, because the search was not constitutionally legal. After the hearing, at which the police and defendants testified, the court issued a three-page decision agreeing with the client that the police search was unconstitutional and all the evidence should be thrown out. As a result, the case against the client was dismissed on all counts.
Result: Motion to Suppress, ALLOWED, ENTIRE CASE DISMISSED.