» Law


November 16th 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 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


October 5th 2015
Possession of Heroin
According to police, client was acting suspiciously and coordinating a drug deal. After monitoring some observations, police stopped a vehicle he was traveling in. What occurred after the stop was, according to Attorney Barbaino, an illegal search and seizure. When an illegal search and seizure occurs, the next step is to make a formal challenge to the government. As can been seen and as is done in each case that this occurs, Attorney Barabino drafts and files a motion and memorandum of law detailing his claims. A date is set to bring in the officers to court to challenge the process of the arrest and drug discovery and the judge reviews the testimony. Occasionally, the judge will make his decision right after the hearing. In this case, the judge tendered a very well written, detailed finding. The result of his finding was that Attorney Barabino’s motion to suppress would be allowed. And since the drugs could not be used as evidence in the case, the result was that the matter would be dismissed. The Commonwealth had an administrative review of 30 days to decide whether to appeal. However, in this case, like most, the case would simply be dismissed on the day the defendant returns to court.
RESULT: Suppression Hearing, SUCCESSFUL, Motion to Dismiss, ALLOWED. Client returns to court for formal DISMISSAL OF THE CHARGE.


September 11th 2015
OUI - Liquor or .08%
Client was a hard working hairstylist and single mother. According to police, she drank alcohol while under the influence. This case presented a variety of legal issues. Those included conflicting statements by the accused and a parking clerk that 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 today's trial, the case was tried again and the witness/employee of the parking garage had an even different version of the events than before. On today's date, the jury had a quick and decisive decision with a brief deliberation and returned a verdict of not guilty.

Drug Possession Charges DISMISSED

July 5th 2015
Drug, Possession to Distribute Class B
Drug, Possession to Distribute Class B
Drug, Possession to Distribute Class B
Drug, Possession to Distribute Class C
Drug, Possession to Distribute Class E
Drug, Possession to Distribute Class C
Client was a young engineer involved with drugs. While under the influence, a young lady friend came over his home. She stayed at his home as a guest and tragically she passed away during the night as a result of a drug overdose. The defendant found her unresponsive and called police without hesitation. His attempts at first aid were valiant but unsuccessful. When police arrived to the home in response to the 911 calls they noticed various drugs in plain view. Those drugs included Morphine, Methadone, Suboxone, Klonopin, Gabapentin and Clonidine. There was enough in the view of police of each drug to charge distribution of the drugs. The police demonstrated a high level of expertise, professionalism, and sophistication. Their expertise was clear as they quickly noticed the necessity of applying for a search warrant for the drugs and conducting interviews and interrogations with proper rights administrated. In the end, the case moved through the court for nearly two years. As the case was close to trial, the District Attorney reduced the Class “A” charge to simple possession. That developed an opening to file a motion to dismiss not only that charge but also the remaining charges under the more recent law protecting people against being charged for possession of drugs when they call for help for people experiencing an overdose. The motion was filed. A hearing date was set. District Attorney stated his anticipated intend of dismissing the charges. On the day of the hearing, the case is dismissed in its entirety.

License Suspension Violation, NOT GUILTY, NO JAIL TIME

August 11th 2014
License Suspended, Operating Motor Vehicle
Client had been charged with operating with a suspended license for OUI. The distinction between License Suspended for OUI and Licensed Suspended is significant. Driving with a suspended license for OUI has mandatory jail term of at least 60 days. Attorney Barabino made the distinction in the law clear to the judge. Although the judge did not send client to jail, he declined to enter proper verdict. The proper verdict was not guilty. After providing client with appellate counsel, the case was brought back to the court and his record amended to the lesser-included offense. In the end, defendant not guilty of the original charge.
RESULT: NOT GUILTY of the original charge, Docket Amended, NO JAIL TIME.


October 22nd 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 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.

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

Civil Offenses, License Suspended, Leave Scene of Property Damage, ALL CRIMINAL AND CIVIL CHARGES DISMISSED

December 13th 2012
Yield at Intersection, Fail Chapter 89 Section 8
License Suspended, Operating Motor Vehicle with c90 §23
Leave Scene of Property Damage Chapter 90, Section 24 (2)(a)
Use of Motor Vehicle Without Authority Chapter 90, Section 24 (2)(a)
Client was a heavy machinery operator who was charged with multiple criminal and civil driving offenses. According to police, client drove into another vehicle and both motor vehicles were destroyed. Client had a suspended license for drinking and driving and had been charged prior to the incident in question. A guilty conviction after trial would have almost certainly meant jail time. The entire case hinged on an obvious identification flaw, and the Commonwealth admitted that flaw at the day of trial. As a result, they offered to dismiss nearly all the charges if client would admit to a lenient penalty on one of the charges. Client stood fast and refused the generous offer. In the end, the Commonwealth simply dismissed the entire case.


March 1st 2012
Abuse Prevention Order Chapter 209A
Client was a young man and father that was on a three year suspended sentence in New Hampshire for another crime. If he was convicted on the above offense of violating a restraining order, he would not only be charged for his crime in Massachusetts but would also serve a three year sentence in New Hampshire. According to the police, client was seen leaving a restricted area that he was ordered to stay away from. At trial, Attorney Barabino requested the court appoint an attorney to investigate if the complainant was lying to police. At the conclusion of the hearing, the complainant was required not to testify, leaving the Commonwealth with only one option---to dismiss the case.