» Police Officer


June 8th 2016
Negligent Operation of Motor Vehicle
A retired teacher was accused of negligently operating a motor vehicle. There were four separate witnesses, including a police officer that witnessed the motor vehicle crash. The witnesses were not helpful to the defendant. A plea was made before the judge asking for ninety-days probation. The District Attorney sought slightly more probation time. In the end, the judge sided with Attorney Barabino and allowed the defendant’s case to be dismissed, as long as she stays out of trouble, for a ninety-day period—otherwise called a continued without a finding or (CWOF).
RESULT: Case to be DISMISSED AFTER 90 DAYS, with NO CONVICTION ON RECORD. Enroll in two safety driver courses.

Resisting Arrest, NOT GUILTY

July 9th 2014
Resisting Arrest
Failure to Stop for Police
A mother of three was driving her car without a registration when police stopped her. She was aware that her registration had expired and that she had been given a break two days prior by the same police department for committing the offense. The officer became aggressive with defendant and at one point reached into her car. When that occurred, defendant left and drove to her home, which was also a dead end street. She calmly waited at her home, in her car, expecting to discuss with police her concerns when the officers arrived. Suddenly, the officer appeared, grabbed her by the arm, and began the process of attempting to pull her from her vehicle. When he incurred some delay in his attempt to pull her onto the driveway and cuff her, he sprayed her in the face with pepper spray three times. As this was occurring, another officer came and began the process of physically handcuffing her and processing her for arrest. The jury went into a second day of deliberations, considering the various arguments, and asking for clarifications on various legal issues. In the end, they all agreed that whatever force was used by the defendant was reasonable, and agreed she was not guilty of Resisting Arrest. The remaining charge was resolved in a $100 fine.
RESULT: Resisting Arrest, NOT GUILTY After Jury Trial.

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.

Illegal Drug Related Charges, SCHOOL ZONE DISMISSED, Negligent Operation, Speeding, License Suspension, REDUCED TO FIRST OFFENSE, NO JAIL TIME FOR ANY CHARGE

June 26th 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

Negligent Operation of Motor Vehicle Chapter 90 Section 24(2)(a)

Speeding in Violation of Special Regulation Chapter 90 Section 18
License Suspended, Operation Motor Vehicle, Subsequent Offense Chapter 90 Section 23E
Client was recently licensed barber who was charged with several offenses. Those offenses included Possession of Heroin, Possession of Heroin with the Intent to Distribute, School Zone/Park Drug Violation, Negligent Operation of a Motor Vehicle, Failure to Stop for Police, Driving on a Suspended License Subsequent Offense, and related civil infractions. According to police, they saw client driving and they knew from prior knowledge that he did not have an active license. They stated they were “very familiar” with client. The statement that they were very familiar with client was supported by the client’s former arrest for distribution and possession of drugs. When they hit the sirens to pull him over he took off and the police chased him for several streets until they caught him on a one way. After client was stopped, they arrested him and took him for booking. After the arrest they found ten separate baggies of what was heroin, packaged in a method consistent with distribution of the drug. Moreover, and very problematic for the Defendant, was that the police charged him with distributing the drugs in a school zone, which carries a two-year house of correction sentence—mandatory—meaning no suspended sentence, no house arrest and obligatory jail time. After nearly a year of litigating the case and hiring an expert in distribution of drugs, the day of trial finally arrived. At trial, the Commonwealth brought with them their own expert in drug distribution, an expert in school zone measurement, two police officers, a chemist from the State Police crime lab, and a representative from the Department of the Registry of Motor Vehicles. Despite Attorney Barabino's ability to and desire to prove his client's innocence, a deal was offered that client was very receptive to. The deal included the Commonwealth dismissing the School Zone Drug Violation charge, dismissing the Possession Charge, reducing the Driving on a Suspended License offense from a subsequent offense to a first offense, a Continuation Without a Finding on the Negligent Operation of a Motor Vehicle, and no fine imposed for the civil offenses.
RESULT: School Zone, DISMISSED, Driving on a Suspended License Subsequent Offense, REDUCED TO FIRST OFFENSE, NO JAIL TIME FOR ANY CHARGE.