» Prosecution

Assault and Battery, DISMISSED

April 7th 2016
Assault and Battery
Client was a hard working painter and father to two beautiful children. He also was a long time spouse to equally pleasant woman. When he suspected she was texting a male friend, he took a glass of milk and drenched her in it. He lost his cool and he readily admitted it. There was no marriage waiver to enlist and there was no Fifth Amendment to invoke, so she was summoned to trial. At trial, the defendant's partner was interviewed by the victim witness advocate and the District Attorney. She was adamant that she was not going to participate with this prosecution. The prosecution simply agreed to dismiss the charge in its entirety, moments before the day of trial.
RESULT: Assault and Battery, DISMISSED

Drug Possession, DISMISSED

May 19th 2015
Drug, Possession Class A, Subsequent Offense
According to police, they arrived at a local McDonald's bathroom to find the accused under the influence of a drug and with brown bags of powder and a needle. According to police, he admitted that he had taken heroin. The Commonwealth made an attempt to obtain medical records to support the charge, but after a hearing, that was denied. Also, the commonwealth was unable to obtain a drug certification certificate from the state crime lab. As a result, at the day of trial, they simply withdrew the prosecution. The court and its staff along with the District Attorney were professional, competent, and classy. In the end, the case was withdrawn from prosecution. In essence, Dismissed.
RESULT: Class “A” Possession, SUBSEQUENT OFFENSE, DISMISSED.

Motion to Suppress Identification, ALLOWED

March 18th 2015
Larceny by Single Scheme
Credit Card False over 250
Identity Fraud
Client was a polite, bright young man who had a drug problem. According to police, he was involved in several schemes to defraud people. First, gaining access to their credit cards and eventually using those credit cards for exorbitant purchases. Police investigated and made an identification of his co-defendant. Attorney Barabino sought an evidentiary hearing, filing a motion with the court with a supporting legal memorandum outlining the reasons why the court should not permit the “I.D.” to be allowed, since it was suggestive. The court agreed. The motion to exclude the ‘I.D.” was allowed and little evidence remained in the case for the prosecution. After nearly a year of preparation, the case resulted in a dismissal.
RESULT: Motion to Suppress Identification, ALLOWED. CASE DISMISSED.

Assault and Battery w/Dangerous Weapon, DISMISSED

June 12th 2014
Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon
A married insurance professional was suffering some emotional struggles and called police to admit to a criminal act. Upon admitting the act over a recorded telephone call, police went to the home. Upon arrival, police realized that client was intoxicated and emotionally distraught. The case could not be proven without the wife’s testimony and with an expectation that she would not be forced to testify, Attorney Barabino placed the matter on for trial. At trial, the seasoned District Attorney, well versed in the rules of evidence, knew there was simply insufficient evidence to prosecute the case with the wife, as she asserted her marital privilege. Attorney Barabino requested that the matter be dismissed, which the court allowed. Case dismissed.
RESULT: Assault and Battery w/Dangerous Weapon, DISMISSED.

Assault and Battery, DISMISSED, NO ADMISSION OF WRONGDOING, NO COSTS, NO FEES, NO OBLIGATIONS, NO COMMITMENTS

May 27th 2014
Assault and Battery
A hard working delivery driver was accused of assaulting his girlfriend. According to police, he pushed her onto the couch, as he wanted her out of his home. When police arrived, he denied these allegations and he was arrested. Attorney Barabino was retained and represented the matter. At the day of trial, the District Attorney was able to speak to the complainant and simply agreed to stop the prosecution with a general continuance.
RESULT: DISMISSED as a General Continuance in 6 Months. NO ADMISSION OF WRONGDOING, NO COSTS, FEES, OBLIGATIONS, OR COMMITMENTS.

Assault and Battery, CROSS COMPLAINT FILED, CASE DISMISSED IN ONE YEAR, NO ADMISSION OF ANY EVIDENCE OR WRONGDOING, NO FEES, NO FINES

December 3rd 2013
Assault and Battery
Client was a young, educated artist from India who came to the United States with her new husband. Shortly after the marriage, the husband made frequent and repeated monetary demands of the defendant and her family. He alleged that the demands were simply an extension of the dowry, or gift giving, in their country's custom. However, when she refused to provide more gifts, he filed for divorce and slammed her with a restraining order. He also claimed that she assaulted and battered him. Then he made attempts to obtain an abused spouse/domestic violence visa from law enforcement, which would have accelerated his own green card application. Then he obtained a restraining order after providing the court with a summary of private conversations that the defendant had with her family and were (accidentally) recorded by her while he was at work. Attorney Barabino was retained after the defendant discharged her prior attorney. When Attorney Barabino took over the case, he restarted the case from its beginning. He hired a forensic computer expert to examine the contents of the unconsented recordings. At the same time, he filed a Criminal Cross Complaint against the alleged victim. Time was of the essence since defendant was on a time sensitive schedule, which could have resulted in her being deported prior to her case being brought to trial. Negotiations resulted in an agreement for a postponed dismissal of the charge. No immigration consequences as well for defendant.
RESULT: Cross Complaint FILED, CASE DISMISSED in One Year, NO ADMISSION OF ANY EVIDENCE OR WRONGDOING, NO FEES, NO FINES.

Leaving the Scene of Property Damage, DISMISSED

December 13th 2012
Leave Scene of Property Damage
Client was a hard working music teacher and single dad. According to police, he was in a parking lot and accidently hit another motor vehicle and purposely refused to stop. Client had no criminal history and an excellent driving record. The District Attorney’s main concern was that the other party being made whole and that they had no out-of-pocket expenses. Once that was confirmed, Prosecution simply dismissed the charge with a $200 court cost. Client was very pleased with end result. Case dismissed.
RESULT: Leaving the Scene of Property Damage, DISMISSED.

Second Offense OUI, Child Endangerment, DISMISSED, MOTION TO DISMISS ALLOWED, NO JAIL TIME ON SECOND OFFENSE

February 17th 2012
2nd OFFENSE OUI- Liquor or .08%
Child Endangerment with Operating Under the Influence
Client was an employee with the Department of Defense. He was charged with Reckless Endangerment of a Child and Operating Under the Influence of Alcohol Second Offense. According to the police, the client's ex-wife received a call from client that he was intoxicated and driving around with her child. She became frantic and searched for client. When she located him, she argued with him driving the motor vehicle in the condition he was in and refused to give her the keys. She left (with her son) and called police since client had insisted on driving. She cooperated with police and police found him a few hundred years down the road. They stated that he failed the sobriety test and failed the Breathalyzer with a reading of 3.1%. 3.1% is nearly four times the legal limit. Prior to trial, Attorney Barabino made vigorous attempts to have the case thrown out in its entirety but was not successful. As the case moved forward, he sent the case down for Motion to Dismiss hearing regarding the Reckless Endangerment charge (which carried mandatory jail time), and that motion was allowed. At the day of trial, every witness appeared, leaving the client with the pre-trial option of a plea, which he eagerly sought. When the deal was argued before the judge, the Commonwealth asked the judge to force client to attend parenting classes and install a Sobrietier machine installed in his home. Attorney Barabino argued against it and was successful. The judge agreed with Attorney Barabino and the client left court with what he wanted---no jail time.
RESULT: Reckless Endangerment of a Child, DISMISSED, Motion to Dismiss, ALLOWED, NO JAIL TIME ON SECOND OFFENSE.