» Lawyer

1st OFFENSE, 90/24D Disposition

October 29th 2018
FIRST OFFENSE OUI- Liquor or .08%
Open Container
Marked Lanes Violation
Client, a young hard working-working professional was charged with Operating under the influence of Alcohol. In addition to the criminal charge she was given three separate "civil" citation(s) which included possessing an open container, speeding and marked lanes violation. According to Police in the early morning hours, client was speeding and weaving. She was found with a glass of beer, red bloodshot eyes and the smell of alcohol on her breath among other indicators of intoxication. Despite what appeared to be a strong case for the Government, she did have a strong defense. Despite the existence of this defense, client understandly, simply wanted to get the case wrapped up quickly, with the least cost and effort possible. As a result, Attorney Barabino was able to negotiate with the District Attorney a 1st offense disposition whereas, the charge will be dismissed after a one-year period. This is a fairly predictable result when the client has an otherwise clean record, no accident at the scene and no additional circumstances such as very high breath test result or disrespectful conduct to the officer. In addition to the 1st offense plea there was an agreement to dismiss all the "civil" infractions which is particularly important to avert an extended license suspension for the multiple surcharges which can result from civil infractions.
RESULT: 1st OFFENSE, 90/24D Disposition, Civil Infractions found NOT RESPONSIBLE.


March 15th 2017
Animal Cruelty
Animal Cruelty
Client was a hardworking father of four, with some criminal history. His roommates believed that he was abusing a dog shared with client, based on the dog’s recent behavior. The Police Department charged the defendant with Cruelty to Animals, based on video evidence provided by his roommates. Roommates filmed the Defendant kicking one dog multiple times and striking another dog with his hand. The case eventually went to trial. On day of trial, Attorney Barabino negotiated an offer for nearly half of the committed time previously offered, with a stay.

Conspiracy to Violate Drug Law, Intimidation, BOTH CHARGES DROPPED

May 10th 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 plead out to a sentence; then a second co-conspirator admitted his guilt and then another plead 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 motion to suppress the identification was held to preserve his rights moving forward, 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.

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.


December 2nd 2014
Possession to Distribute Class D
Client was a passenger driving in a motor vehicle with his friends. They were also under the eye of a special response unit or a specialized anti-drugs investigation unit. That unit converged on the vehicle and confiscated nearly 100 grams of marijuana, scales, ledgers for recording transactions, and over $1000 in cash. Attorney Barabino requested a challenge to the motor vehicle stop via a Motion to Suppress evidence. Once that motion, affidavits, and memorandum of law were filed, the police were brought into court for a hearing. The court issued a decision after a month’s wait indicating that the evidence should be thrown out. As a result, the case will be dismissed.
RESULT: Motion to Suppress All Evidence, ALLOWED. CASE DISMISSED.


October 21st 2014
Permitting Unlicensed Operation of a Motor Vehicle
Client was a hard working kindergarten teacher who allowed her husband to drive her motor vehicle without a license. He has since obtained his permit, and upon providing verification of a full and authenticated license, will have this matter be closed. No complaint ever issues.


August 19th 2014
OUI - Liquor or .08%
Client was a hard working supermarket manager. After having a few drinks after work one day, he was returned home to discover a DWI/Roadblock. The State Police noticed that he had glassy red eyes, admitted to consuming two drinks, slurred his speech, and was very unsteady on his feet. After an unsuccessful performance on his field sobriety test, he was arrested. Client took the stand in his own defense. A clear timeline and understanding of his natural inability to perform the test was presented, and an attentive jury returned a verdict of not guilty. Motion to reinstate client’s license, allowed.
RESULT: Jury returns verdict of NOT GUILTY, Motion to reinstate license, ALLOWED.

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.

Intent to Distribute, DISMISSED, Unlawful Drug Possession Charge, NOT GUILTY, School Zone Drug Violation, DISMISSED

June 29th 2012

Drug, Possession to Distribute Class A Chapter 94C Section 32A (a)

Unlawful Drug Possession Chapter 94C Section 34

Drug Violation Near School/Park Chapter 94C 32 J

Client was employed in the construction field and work was slow. According to the police, they saw client (with whom they were familiar) pull behind another car that they were secretly watching. They observed client’s passenger get out of the car and sell heroin to a young couple. The police were there at the right time and the right place. In fact, the group of officers observing the transaction was from the Special Response Team (SRT), which consisted of experienced, knowledgeable drug enforcement officers. Their hunch of illegal activity was correct---they witnessed a drug transaction. The police arrested all involved and client was charged with possession of heroin, possession of heroin with intent to distribute, and possession with intent to distribute within a school zone. The last charge, intent to distribute within a school zone carries a two year house of correction jail sentence. That two-year sentence is mandatory. When a charge is mandatory, that means no suspended sentence, house arrest, or probation—the person must go to a correctional facility for two years (eligible for parole after one year). For some “mandatory” charges there are provisions for a suspended sentence---but not with a “school zone charge”. The case proceeded through the court system for nearly a year. The other people that were arrested at the same time, called (co-defendants), were represented by other lawyers and admitted to guilt. Any admission of guilt for Attorney Barabino’s client was unacceptable---a decision he and his client made early on in the case. However, when prior to a hearing an offer of dismissing the school zone charge and the distribution charge and admitting to “sufficient facts” for the possession charge was proposed, client was ready to agree to a deal. In addition, client consented to forfeiting his nearly $1,000 in cash, which was located on his person. If he remains out of trouble for a year, his charge will be dismissed entirely.
RESULT: School Zone, DISMISSED, Intent to Distribute, DISMISSED, Possession Charge, NOT GUILTY.