» OUI-liquor

November 9th 2018
SECOND OFFENSE OUI- Liquor or .08%
Speeding
Client was a hard-working, newly married construction professional who was charged with a 2nd Offense OUI. According to Police, he was speeding and pulled over. The police drafted a report with all the normal indicators of intoxication. Also, client agreed to a breath test which was twice the legal limit. The client wanted a deal and wanted to move on with his life which included a hardship license to drive. At a plea hearing, the Commonwealth asked the judge to impose a guilty conviction with a suspended jail sentence and have him attend a government two-week IMPATIENTprogram. Attorney Barabino argued for an alternative disposition where client would be 1) placed on probation with an expectation that the case be dismissed after a year with normal conditions and cost of a 1st Offense OUI charge, a 45-day loss of license not one year, and NO Impatient program. The judge agreed with Attorney Barabino.
RESULT: 2nd OFFENSE OUI, 1st OFFENSE RESULT, Speeding Ticket, NOT RESPONSIBLE.

October 29th 2018
FIRST OFFENSE OUI- Liquor or .08%
Open Container
Speeding
Marked Lanes Violation
Client, a young hard working-working professional was charged with Operating under the influence of Alcohol. In addition to the criminal charge she was given three separate "civil" citation(s) which included possessing an open container, speeding and marked lanes violation. According to Police in the early morning hours, client was speeding and weaving. She was found with a glass of beer, red bloodshot eyes and the smell of alcohol on her breath among other indicators of intoxication. Despite what appeared to be a strong case for the Government, she did have a strong defense. Despite the existence of this defense, client understandly, simply wanted to get the case wrapped up quickly, with the least cost and effort possible. As a result, Attorney Barabino was able to negotiate with the District Attorney a 1st offense disposition whereas, the charge will be dismissed after a one-year period. This is a fairly predictable result when the client has an otherwise clean record, no accident at the scene and no additional circumstances such as very high breath test result or disrespectful conduct to the officer. In addition to the 1st offense plea there was an agreement to dismiss all the "civil" infractions which is particularly important to avert an extended license suspension for the multiple surcharges which can result from civil infractions.
RESULT: 1st OFFENSE, 90/24D Disposition, Civil Infractions found NOT RESPONSIBLE.

January 13^th 2016
Second Offense OUI- Liquor or .08%
Marked Lanes Violation
Open Container
Client was a hard working human resources professional. According to police, she demonstrated concerning driving. She was pulled over by police. They stated she smelt like booze, had slurred speech, glassy eyes and problems performing field sobriety test. She took a portable breath test and scored three times the legal limit. After substantial consult and attempts to appeal her breath test refusal, a plea was sought. At the earliest date possible, client received non-jail alternative disposition.
RESULT: NON-JAIL ALTERNATIVE DISPOSITION. OPEN CONTAINER NOT RESPONSIBLE.

January 11^th 2016
Second Offense OUI- Liquor or .08%
Disorderly Conduct
Negligent Operation of a Motor Vehicle
Marked Lanes Violation
Client was stopped by police after hitting the fence of a police station. Police determined that the smell on his breath, unsteadiness and related factors were sufficient to arrest -assumption was correct. Client before had been drinking and was surprised to realize his level of intoxication was as high as it was. The biggest factor for client was accepting responsibility and getting a license back at the earliest possibility. Attorney Barabino and client were able to negotiate no jail time. Not responsible on Marked Lanes Violation. Negligent Operation Dismissed.
RESULT: Alternative No Jail Disposition, Marked Lanes, NOT RESPONSIBLE, Negligent Operation, DISMISSED.

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.

October 10^th 2014
OUI - Liquor or .08%
Client was a hard working government employee with no criminal record. According to police, he rear-ended another vehicle and was given sobriety test, which they say he failed. Client took a Breathalyzer test and registered over twice the legal limit. Attorney Barabino consulted with his client very early, who simply sought to be walked through the process as efficiently and inexpensively as possible. The District Attorney sought an 18-month probation period but after a hearing, the court allowed the defendant's request for a one year period instead.
RESULT: COURT ALLOWS DEFENDANT REQUEST FOR LESS PROBATION