» Marijuana

November 2nd 2016
Drug, Possession to Distribute Class D
Drug Violation Near School/Park
Client was a young man in high school who was charged with distribution of marijuana in a school zone. After an investigation and digestion of the discovery and facts, a motion to dismiss was filed. The motion detailed the facts, the law, and argued how the case should be dismissed. The lengthy memorandum was filed and discussions with District Attorney additionally held. In the end, the hard working and professional district attorney agreed to simply dismiss the charges. All charges dismissed.
RESULT: Motion to Dismiss, FILED, CASE DISMISSED.

November 18^th 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 a pound of marijuana, cash, and a scale, we were ready for trial. Moments before the trial began we agreed to a deal with the Commonwealth that would dismiss the Conspiracy charge, reduce the possession 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.

October 7^th 2015
Possession with Intent to Distribute Class “D”
Conspiracy
Client was a loving father, a dedicated employee, and a supportive partner. According to police, an “informant” provided information to police that he thought that drug dealing was occurring at his home. Police, being particularly detailed, commenced what are called “trash pulls”, which included a review of the contents of all their trash at multiple trash drops. A search warrant was executed. Police located a few ounces of marijuana, scales and baggies. The cases presented some complexities since there was an immigration detainer. So the goal was to move the case as fast as possible. However, despite immigration concerns, client and Attorney Barabino didn’t want to see him admit to a distribution charge, when the reality was that it was simply marijuana for personal use, albeit a larger amount than typical for the average smoker. In the end, immigration consequences left us no choice but trial and mid-day into the first day of trial, moments before the jury was to enter, an agreement to reduce the charge to simple possession ended the case.
RESULT: REDUCTION FROM DISTRIBUTION TO SIMPLE POSSESSION. Conspiracy DISMISSED.

December 2^nd 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.

December 20^th 2012
Drug, Possession to Distribute Class D Chapter 94C Section 32C(a)
Client was a young man with no criminal record. According to police, client was in a motor vehicle when police approached and saw what they described as smoke emitting from the windows. The police searched and interviewed all the people in the vehicle. During the search of the vehicle, they discovered two scales used for weighing marijuana, and marijuana itself. The amount of marijuana combined with the scales and statements resulted in the arrest of client and another. A Motion to Suppress was filed and testimony was elicited from the arresting officers as well as the parties charged with this crime. After a hearing, the court took the matter under advisement. At the next court date, the court issued their ruling, declaring that the police acted unconstitutionally and that the evidence should be thrown out as inadmissible. As a result, the charges were dismissed.
RESULT: Motion to Suppress, ALLOWED, CASE DISMISSED.

December 3^rd 2012
Drug, Possession to Distribute Class D Chapter 94C Section 32C(a)
Client, a young man in high school, was charged with Distributing Marijuana. According to police, client was in a parking lot with another person, after hours, when police performed a well-being check. Once police arrived, they smelled the odor of pot and detected other suspicious behavior. Police made Defendant exit the vehicle and located several separate bags of pot in his pocket upon search, as well as nearly $500 in cash. The police arrested and charged client and Attorney Barabino began criminal representation with client. An expert was hired with a specialty in drug distribution and several motions were filed to prepare for trial. Since it was expected that Attorney Barabino and client would only accept a complete dismissal or a not guilty verdict, the case was litigated for nearly a year and a half. During one hearing Attorney Barabino sought suppression of evidence and that request was allowed by the judge. With little expectation of success, the District Attorney simply dismissed the case. Attorney Barabino sought return of the client's so called drug money, and the court agreed and allowed the motion to return his property.
RESULT: Motion to Suppress, ALLOWED, CASE DISMISSED.