» Not Guilty

Armed Robbery Acquittal

November 21st, 2019
Masked Armed Robbery
Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon
Witness Intimidation
Client was involved with a group of girls who had a long history with another group of girls. Those interactions turned to multiple criminal allegations. (October 22nd, 2019 Not Guilty verdict| Recent Cases Section). In this allegation, the district attorney successfully indicted the young adults which would have the potential penalty of a life sentence. The evidence presented from the Commonwealth included a video of client and co-conspirators placing on mask and a hoodie and then proceeding into a bathroom where the target was. And then leaving. After all the witnesses testified and all the evidence was presented, the attentive jury came back and an acquittal on all the adult sentences, specifically masked armed robbery and Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon. The result was guilty on simply assault and battery and witness intimidation charge. Acquitted of all adult charges which was the hopeful outcome.
RESULT: NOT- GUILTY Masked Armed Robbery & Assault & Battery w/Dangerous Weapon.

NOT-GUILTY for reason of insanity.

September 23rd 2019
Civil Rights Violation(s)
Assault & Battery
Disorderly Conduct
An out-of-work beautician was charged with assault and battery, disorderly conduct and civil rights violations. According to police, he yelled insulting remarks to an innocent Asian woman, then grabbed her and pulled her arm. He was also disorderly. He was tackled to the ground by bystanders. The Commonwealth moved for a dangerousness hearing under the “58A” dangerousness statute. As a result, client was held in state custody since the event occurred in summer of 2018. Attorney Barabino had his client evaluated from a private forensic psychiatrist who opined that the defendant was not criminally responsible. That in combination with the Commonwealth’s doctor’s testimony led to a verdict of NOT GUILTY by reason of mental defect or disease. Client DISCHARGED.
RESULT: NOT- GUILTY for reason of insanity.

NOT-GUILTY OUI

May 28th 2019
Operating under the Influence of Alcohol
Client was a very pleasant hard-working dad who was charged with operating under the influence of alcohol. According to Police, client was speeding when he collided another speeding vehicle. Although the damage was minor, police came and began asking questions. Client admitted drinking three beers and naturally smelled like alcohol, which the police noted. The police testified his eyes were also bloodshot and very glassy. And that he was unsteady on his feet and was swaying slightly. At trial, Attorney Barabino cross-examined the officer and then put on the defendant’s friend who he had been with just prior to the arrest. An attentive jury took their time, asked questions and finally unanimously returned a verdict of NOT GUILTY. Attorney Barabino requested the court endorse a motion to reinstate the license which was allowed.
RESULT: Jury Verdict of NOT GUILTY, Motion to Reinstate License ALLOWED.

NOT-GUILTY of Assault and Battery on a Household Member.  

April 28th 2019
Assault and Battery on a Household Member
Client was a hardworking truck driver that was alleged to have assaulted and battered his ex-girlfriend. According to the ex-girlfriend he got enraged and smashed a coffee pot while they were on their boat. It was alleged that after he smashed the coffee pot, he grabbed the complainant and then held her on the upper chest resulting in her inability to move or strike back. This testimony was challenged by Attorney Barabino on cross-examination. And after the Commonwealth rested their case, Attorney Barabino called his client to the stand. The client was relentlessly and competently cross examined by the District Attorney. In the end, the jury closely listened to all the admissible fact and rendered a verdict of Not-Guilty.
RESULT: NOT- GUILTY of Assault and Battery on a Household Member.

Drinking and Driving NOT GUILTY

December 4th 2018
Unlicensed Operation of MV
First Offense OUI- Liquor or .08%
Failure to Stop
A hard-working individual was in a minor car accident and State Police were called to the scene and charged client with operating under the influence of alcohol; driving unlicensed and a civil infraction. According to State Police, client’s breath smelt of alcohol, he was slurring his words, he was unsteady on his feet and had red glossy eyes. When the respectful officer asked about the accident, client was not entirely clear about the account and the damages to the vehicle did not fit his account. Attorney Barabino crossed examined the both the arresting officer and the booking officer. At the conclusion of the case, the jury deliberated and agreed that the client was NOT GUILTY of driving under the influence. The court also marked his civil infraction NOT RESPONSIBLE and the client had already agreed to a three-month probation period on the unlicensed operation which at which time it will be dismissed.
RESULT: JURY RETURNS VERDICT OF NOT GUILTY.

1st OFFENDERS Disposition, NOT RESPONSIBLE Both Civil Infractions.

November 8th 2018
FIRST OFFENSE OUI- Liquor or .08%
Marked Lanes Violation

Mobile Phone, Operator Use Improperly
Client, a young Ph.D. Biotech manager was charged with OUI first offense. According to Police, she was seen driving erratically late at night. The police arrested her after they believed she failed the sobriety test and other indicators of intoxication. Not interested in prolonged, possibly unpredictable and more costly litigation she chooses enter a plea before the court. Attorney Barabino, moved the case so that she could close out the case sooner that it had been originally planned. Once at court, the understanding and reasonable district attorneys reviewed her background and engaged in a discussion, agreeing to a continued without-a-finding for 12 months and 45-day loss of license. They also agreed to find her Not Responsible for the Mobile Phone use ticket. Once in front of the judge, Attorney Barabino argued for the above disposition AND for her to be found NOT RESPONSIBLE on the marked lanes violation, to which the judge agreed too.
RESULT: 1st OFFENDERS Disposition, NOT RESPONSIBLE Both Civil Infractions.

Two Counts of Indecent Assault and Battery, NOT GUILTY

September 13th 2018
Indecent Assault & Battery Under 14
Indecent Assault & Battery Under 14
Client was long-time senior government manager for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Highly publicized accusations cost him nearly everything, with even the Governor of Massachusetts making his position on case known to the media. This was the second round of accusations against client of these charges. After three days of trial, 14 witnesses, exhibits, computer evidence, testimony, and the defendant taking the stand in his defense, client received a verdict of "not guilty" on both counts.
RESULT: Both Counts, NOT GUILTY.

Assault and Battery, Disorderly Conduct, NOT GUILTY

February 15th 2018
Disorderly Conduct
Assault on a Household Member
Disturbing the Peace
Client was a hard working father who had dispute with his daughter that resulted in him being charged with assault and battery, disturbing the peace, and disorderly conduct. A trial was eventually scheduled and held. There were a number of different versions of the event but the client and his witnesses were consistent on the witness stand with their version of the events. The Commonwealth’s witnesses waivered and were not consistent. As a result, the court delivered not guilty verdicts on the assault and battery and disorderly conduct charges, and only a one-hundred dollar fine for disturbing the peace.
RESULT: NOT- GUILTY OF ASSAULT AND BATTERY AND DISORDERLY CONDUCT

Sex Charges, NOT GUILTY

January 9th 2018
Indecent Assault & Battery Under 14
Indecent Assault & Battery Under 14
Client was long-time senior manager for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Highly publicized accusations cost him nearly everything, with even the Governor of Massachusetts making his position on case known to the media. After nearly two years of litigious hearings and preparation, client's case went to trial. Client was found not guilty on both counts.
RESULT: Both Counts, NOT GUILTY.

Violation of Abuse Prevention Order, NOT GUILTY AFTER TRIAL

September 5th 2017
Abuse Prevention Order
Client, a hard-working father, had been in a romantic relationship with a woman years ago. When the relationship ended, she secured a restraining order which prohibited him from being within 100 yards of her at all times. According to her, while she was working at her place of employment, he went to the place of employment and stared at her in violation of the order. Defense agreed that he did briefly walk by her store where she was working, but that he did not know she worked there and he was as surprised as she was to discover her there. Although a strong case for the defense, the Commonwealth felt otherwise. The Commonwealth brought the case to trial and even obtained prior allegations against the defendant to show his “bad acts”. At trial, judge ruled that the Commonwealth could not admit the prior bad acts, as a guilty verdict would surely mean deportation for the otherwise, innocent defendant. However, after witness after witness testified, a not guilty verdict was returned.
RESULT: NOT GUILTY AFTER TRIAL