» Not Guilty

April 14^th 2017
Assault Chapter
Threats to Commit Murder
Assault and Battery
Strangulation or Suffocation
Client had been previously convicted of seriously abusing his girlfriend many decades ago. Now, once again, she accused him of the same crime. Client denied those new accusations, but also realized that based on his past conduct and the credible nature of the evidence, that a plea was preferable since it would mitigate the otherwise harsh sentence that the judge has proposed. However ultimately, the case went to trial. Client was convicted of all counts except threats to commit murder, for which he was found not guilty.
RESULT: Threat to Murder, NOT GUILTY.

March 28^th 2017
Assault and Battery
Assault and Battery
Strangulation or Suffocation
Client was a hardworking federal employee. He was charged with Strangulation of his ex-girlfriend, Assault and Battery on his Girlfriend, and Assault and Battery on another involved in the incident in question. It was alleged that he was angry at his ex-girlfriend after discovering text messages from her former spouse on her phone. It was alleged that he came into her bedroom, pushed her friend into a dresser, and then proceeded to choke ex-girlfriend for nearly a minute. The district attorney applied for and received a Dangerous Hearing. Based on facts of the case, it was determined that client was too dangerous to be released into society. Attorney Barabino appealed that ruling and was successful. Client was then released pending trial. At trial, the jury ruled him not guilty of all the charges.
RESULT: 58A DANGEROUS HEARING OVERTURNED, Client released Pending Trial, NOT GUILTY OF ALL CHARGES.

August 18^th 2016
Attempted Murder
Stalking
Intimidation of a Witness
Assault with a Dangerous Weapon
Assault and Battery
Assault and Battery
Assault and Battery
Client was a young man who was indicted on the above charges. The case involved a variety of legal issues and challenges to prepare the case for trial, which occurred over a two-year period. In addition to various discoveries, Attorney Barabino had physician expert on standby ready to testify for the defense. After four days of trial, the jury returned verdict of not guilty on all counts, with the exception of two misdemeanors.
RESULT: Jury Verdict: NOT-GUILTY OF ATTEMPTED MURDER, STALKING, INTIMIDATION OF A WITNESS, ASSAULT AND BATTERY AND ASSAULT WITH A DANGEROUS WEAPON.

September 11^th 2015
OUI - Liquor or .08%
Client was a hard working hairstylist and single mother. According to police, she drank alcohol while under the influence. This case presented a variety of legal issues. Those included conflicting statements by the accused and a parking clerk that stated that she could barely stand. Police officers testified accurately that the accused performed her sobriety test in “less than ideal” conditions and had zero problems with at least one test. In the end, the jury could not reach a verdict. In any criminal trial, all the jurors must agree that the accused is “guilty” beyond a reasonable doubt of the crime charged or “not guilty”. Generally, an agreement is reached, one-way or the other. Sometimes that agreement takes longer than expected. In this case, the jury was deadlocked and simply could not agree. In the end, the parties agreed to a “Rodriguez” charge, which means that the judge is giving them one more opportunity to come to an agreement. Here, the instruction was given, but in the end, the jurors simply could not agree and the court ruled the matter a mistrial. During today's trial, the case was tried again and the witness/employee of the parking garage had an even different version of the events than before. On today's date, the jury had a quick and decisive decision with a brief deliberation and returned a verdict of not guilty.
RESULT: JURY FINDS DEFENDANT NOT GUILTY.

April 8^th 2015
OUI - Liquor or .08%
Client was a hard working hairstylist and single mother. According to police, she drank alcohol while under the influence. This case presented a variety of legal issues. Included were conflicting statements by accused, a parking clerk that stated she could barely stand, and finally police officers that testified accurately that the accused performed her sobriety test in “less than ideal” conditions and had zero problems with at least one test. In the end, the jury could not reach a verdict. In any criminal trial, all the jurors must agree that the accused is “guilty” or “not guilty” beyond a reasonable doubt of the crime charged. Generally, an agreement is reached, one way or the other. Sometimes that agreement takes longer than expected. In this case, the jury was deadlocked and simply could not agree. In the end, the parties agreed to a “Rodriguez” charge, which means that the judge would give them one more time to come to an agreement. Here, the instruction was given, but in the end, the jurors simply could not agree and the court ruled the matter a mistrial.
RESULT: Rodriguez “Blow Out” Charge, HUNG JURY, RETRIAL TO BE DETERMINED.

August 19^th 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.

August 11^th 2014
License Suspended, Operating Motor Vehicle
Client had been charged with operating with a suspended license for OUI. The distinction between License Suspended for OUI and Licensed Suspended is significant. Driving with a suspended license for OUI has mandatory jail term of at least 60 days. Attorney Barabino made the distinction in the law clear to the judge. Although the judge did not send client to jail, he declined to enter proper verdict. The proper verdict was not guilty. After providing client with appellate counsel, the case was brought back to the court and his record amended to the lesser-included offense. In the end, defendant not guilty of the original charge.
RESULT: NOT GUILTY of the original charge, Docket Amended, NO JAIL TIME.

July 24^th 2014
Leave Scene of Property Damage
Leave Scene of Property Damage
OUI - Liquor or .08%
Client was a hard working, truck-driving grandfather. According to police, he smashed into another motor vehicle and a road sign at a parking lot and left without informing anyone. The police investigated and interviewed the defendant at his home. When they interviewed the defendant, he had slurred speech, smelt of alcohol and had a hard time standing up. Attorney Barabino filed a motion to suppress statements made by the defendant, but the judge at an earlier date did not allow the motion. After viewing the scene and interviewing the witnesses, who gave a much different account than the police, a trial was requested. At trial, a judge declared that the Defendant is not guilty. A prior agreement for leaving the scene was generally continued for six months with no admission of any wrongdoing. Client had been an immediate threat and unable to drive since the beginning of the case, but could immediately seek reinstatement from the Registry of Motor Vehicles.
RESULT: NOT GUILTY OF OUI/DWI.