» Not Guilty

Assault and Battery, Disorderly Conduct, NOT GUILTY ALL CHARGES

April 10th 2014
Assault and Battery on a Police Office
Disorderly Conduct
Client was a hard working sales professional that was charged with Assaulting and Battering a Police Officer and Disorderly Conduct. According to the MBTA Police, Client mouthed off at them using profanities and thrusted his shoulder into an officer, throwing him back several steps. Once able to recover, the officer attempted to grab a hold of the defendant's arm, to which a brief struggle ensued. Profanities continued and the defendant was charged with the above crimes. After five separate trial dates, the defendant was finally placed on trial before a jury. The jury came to the conclusion that the defendant did not try to cause a disturbance and he did not assault and batter the police officer.
RESULT: ALL CHARGES NOT- GUILTY.

Larceny from a Building, NOT GUILTY

September 18th 2013
Larceny from a Building
Client was a young man charged with the felony offense of Larceny from a Building. According to police and surveillance video provided by the establishment, the Defendant did take a pocketbook. However, after several witnesses testified that the bag was left untouched in his friend’s car and the Defendant testified himself explaining that his girlfriend had the same type of purse, the jury quickly agreed that he simply made a mistake.
RESULT: Jury Verdict: NOT- GUILTY

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

Attempt to Commit Crime, NOT GUILTY, Disorderly Conduct, CHARGE FILED FOR A PERIOD OF TWO MONTHS

October 9th 2012
Attempt to Commit Crime Chapter 274 Section 6
Disorderly Conduct Chapter 272 Section 53
Client, a retired airlines employee, was charged with attempting to commit a crime and disorderly conduct. According to police, client had entered the hallway of an apartment building and repeatedly struck the door with her foot. The occupant watched this occur through her peephole and after increased concern, called police. Police then stopped the Defendant down the street from the apartment complex. When interviewed by them, client gave conflicting accounts of what occurred and she was arrested for attempting to break in to the apartment and disorderly conduct. At trial, the District Attorney attempted to modify the complaint to reflect a subsequent charge of disorderly conduct since she had been convicted before this date in a separate incident. The judge denied that request and the client ultimately passed no time in jail for that charge. After trial, the evidence of the witnesses failed to support a charge of breaking and entering and the client was acquitted.
RESULT: NOT-GUILTY of Attempt to Commit a Crime Charge, Disorderly Conduct Charge FILED for a period of two Months.

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.

1 2 3 Last »