» Possession


October 7th 2015
Possession with Intent to Distribute Class “D”
Client was a loving father, a dedicated employee, and a supportive partner. According to police, an “informant” provided information to police that he thought that drug dealing was occurring at his home. Police, being particularly detailed, commenced what are called “trash pulls”, which included a review of the contents of all their trash at multiple trash drops. A search warrant was executed. Police located a few ounces of marijuana, scales and baggies. The cases presented some complexities since there was an immigration detainer. So the goal was to move the case as fast as possible. However, despite immigration concerns, client and Attorney Barabino didn’t want to see him admit to a distribution charge, when the reality was that it was simply marijuana for personal use, albeit a larger amount than typical for the average smoker. In the end, immigration consequences left us no choice but trial and mid-day into the first day of trial, moments before the jury was to enter, an agreement to reduce the charge to simple possession ended the case.

Class "D" Intent to Distribute, DISMISSED, Conspiracy, DISMISSED

May 4th 2015
Drug, Possession Class D (Weed), Distribute
Conspiracy to Violate Drug Law
According to police, while on patrol in a high-crime area, they noticed what they believed to be a drug transaction. They produced a lengthy police report, which detailed their observations. The officers based their actions on a hunch and that hunch proved to be correct. An attempt to dismiss the case suppressing evidence as an illegal search was surprisingly unsuccessful. However, Attorney Barabino and client moved on. After viewing the scene with client, reviewing the evidence in the possession of the government, and preparing witnesses, a trial date was set. The government had an admission of wrongdoing from the defendant, a quarter pound of weed (individually bagged and others empty bags), a scale, and a little more than two hundred dollars as evidence. Despite appearing ready at the first trial date, the Commonwealth was not ready. As a sanction, the judge said at the next date they must appear ready. On the second date, they were unable to answer ready and the judge agreed to dismiss the case.
RESULT: Class “D” Intent to Distribute, DISMISSED, Conspiracy DISMISSED.


January 23rd 2014
Possession of Class B, Subsequent Offense
Client had previously admitted guilt to a charge of possession of cocaine, subsequent offense. Attorney Barabino sought to reopen his case since the drugs had been tested by the drug lab manipulator “Annie Dookham”. Attorney Barabino brought a motion to reopen the case or a Motion for a New Trial. That motion was allowed despite being vehemently opposed by the District Attorney. The District Attorney refused to dismiss the charges even though client had served a majority of the jail time that is permitted for the charge. As a result, Attorney Barabino sought to dismiss the evidence, since he alleged that it was obtained in violation of his constitutional rights—which ultimately would have forced the case to be dismissed. The court, in its eventual ruling, sided with the defendant. In this case, the Commonwealth sought additional time to consult with their appellate division, but the result remained clear, and despite the additional time, the case would be dismissed.
RESULT: Motion for a New Trial, ALLOWED, Motion to SUPPRESS, ALLOWED, Case DISMISSED.


September 24th 2013
Drug, Possession Class B (Cocaine) Chapter 94C Section 34
Drug, Possession to Distribute Class C Chapter 94C Section 32A (a)
Drug, Possession to Distribute Class C Chapter 94C Section 32A (a)
Drug, Possession to Distribute Class B Chapter 94C Section 32A (a)
Drug Possession Class C Chapter 94C Section 34
Drug Possession Class C Chapter 94C Section 34
Client was driving on an expired hardship license or "Cinderella" license. That license is valid for only a twelve-hour period, once per day. On this day, police pulled over client who was driving in violation of that license restriction. A traffic stop occurred and eventually various drugs were located by police. Client was charged, along with his vehicle's passengers, for the above offenses. After several months, a Motion to Suppress Evidence was prepared and a memorandum of law outlining why the police did not properly follow the rules drafted. The court agreed with Attorney Barabino's request for a dismissal. On the date of the hearing the Commonwealth agreed that the stop was not in accordance with the rules of stopping a vehicle and the motion was allowed.
RESULT: Motion to SUPPRESS, FILED AND ALLOWED via agreement, All charges DISMISSED, $100.00 fine for unlicensed operation charge.

Firearms Related Charges, Habitual Offender Statute Violation, MOTION TO SUPPRESS FILED, CASE DISMISSED

December 11th 2012
Unlawful Possession of a Firearm Chapter 269 Section 10(a)
Unlawful Possession of Ammunition Chapter 269 Section 10 (h)
Carrying a Loaded Firearm Chapter 269 Section 10(n)
Habitual Offender Statute Chapter 279 Section 25
Client was a hard working father and husband who had been standing on a sidewalk in Roxbury with several other men. Police arrived and searched all the people, including client. After they searched client they discovered he possessed a loaded 9mm firearm in his waistband. Client was arrested and charged with the above charges and appointed a public defender. The public defender did a great job of obtaining a dismissal of the Habitual Offender Law, which had exposed client to potential significant prison time. However, after nearly a year of litigating the case, client sought Attorney Barabino to represent him on the above firearms-related charges. Attorney Barabino conducted a thorough examination of the crime scene, called witnesses to testify, and asserted case law regarding search and seizure in an extensive memorandum of law. On the day he filed a Motion to Suppress was filed, Commonwealth filed a separate motion with the court to withdraw the case from prosecution. Case Closed.

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.

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.