» OUI

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.

September 2^nd 2014
OUI -Drugs
Client was a hard working, long-time truck driver with four children. When he was in a minor fender bender, the police thought he looked like “he could be under the influence”. He admitted to taking a sleeping pill of an unknown origin the night before, and was still sleepy. The police asked him to perform Field Sobriety Test (FST), which they said he failed. The police normally obtain at this point a Drug Recognition Expert or ‘DRE”, but they did not in this case. After examining the 911 tape, the accident scene, and witness statements, Attorney Barabino knew that the Commonwealth would be unsuccessful in proving its case. Attorney Barabino and client brought the case to trial, to which the Commonwealth stated it was not ready. Attorney Baraboo requested that the charge be dropped or “dismissed”, to which the judge agreed. Charge dismissed.
RESULT: CASE DISMISSED.

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.

April 30^th 2014
2nd Offense OUI- Liquor or .08%
Negligent Operation of Motor Vehicle
Operating Motor Vehicle with Suspended License
According to police, client drove recklessly around state police who were assisting with road construction safety. According to police report, client weaved around the police and workers in such a way that it required them to jump out of the way of his vehicle. According to the state troopers' police narrative, the defendant’s eyes were bloodshot, his speech slurred, he failed the sobriety test, and he failed a Breathalyzer test. The client weighed his options with Attorney Barabino and in the end simply wanted to bring the matter to conclusion, to get a predictable result and obtain his license back as soon as possible. Following his client’s wishes, Attorney Barabino met with the District Attorney, who remained committed to recommending a suspended six-month jail sentence, a two-week inpatient detoxification program, and related programs. The judge listened intently and diligently to all sides and in the end agreed with Attorney Barabino for a 12 Month CWOF for the OUI Second Offense and to treat it as a First Offense instead. The judge gave the District Attorney what he sought on the Negligent Operation and License Suspension.
RESULT: OUI Second Offense Reduced to First Offense Deal, SECURED, Continued Without a Finding (CWOF) for a Period of One Year, with DISMISSAL After One Year.