» Negotiations

Larceny over $250, ADMISSION TO CHARGE WITH CONDITIONAL AGREEMENT FOR DISMISSAL

October 16th 2017
Larceny over $250.00
Client was a young man who stole over five thousand ($5,000.00) dollars worth of electronic goods from a chain store in the course of his employment there. The case against client was strong as the store had investigated the case for months and assembled a trove of electronic evidence. In addition, they secured an admission to the crime from client prior to him being formally charged. Negotiations continued for several months and parties involved reached an agreement: client would admit to the charge, he doesn’t pay any probation fees, agrees to take a half program to learn about theft, and pays back the money of the items that he stole. In the end, no conviction would appear on his record as long as he complies with the agreement.
RESULT: ADMISSION TO CHARGE WITH CONDITIONAL AGREEMENT FOR DISMISSAL

Unlicensed Operation & Speeding, DISMISSED WITH NO FINE, Forging RMV signature, DISMISSED ON $250.00

July 14th 2016
Unlicensed Operation of a Motor Vehicle
RMV Signature, Forge, Misuse Section
Speeding in Violation of Special Regulation
Client was a chief who was charged with driving on a false license, doing so illegally, and speeding. He was an otherwise reputable member of the community. Charges were negotiated and resolved in just two court appearances. Client paid court fee at conclusion of matter in court and no record for an employer or immigration.
RESULT: Charge of Unlicensed Operation & Speeding, DISMISSED, NO FINE. Forging RMV signature, DISMISSED on $250.00.

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.