» Salem District Court

Several Charges Dismissed

May 14th 2019
Assault and Battery on a Household Member
Abuse Prevention Order
Assault with a Dangerous Weapon
Client was a very pleasant hard-working alarm specialist. He was charged by police for violation of a restraining order, assault with a dangerous weapon and assault of a family member. According to police, client was driving down the road when his swerved towards his ex-girlfriend and smiled at her Eventually, the case was marked for trial. We confidently expected to show that it did not occur and that this was simply a pattern of the ex-girlfriend’s harassment, deception and jealously toward client. In addition, Attorney Barabino, and client worked together bring in five separate reputation witnesses in furtherance of the defense of the case. In the end, the accuser did not show up for trial and the case was dismissed.
RESULT: All Charges DISMISSED.

1st OFFENDERS Disposition, NOT RESPONSIBLE Both Civil Infractions.

November 8th 2018
FIRST OFFENSE OUI- Liquor or .08%
Marked Lanes Violation

Mobile Phone, Operator Use Improperly
Client, a young Ph.D. Biotech manager was charged with OUI first offense. According to Police, she was seen driving erratically late at night. The police arrested her after they believed she failed the sobriety test and other indicators of intoxication. Not interested in prolonged, possibly unpredictable and more costly litigation she chooses enter a plea before the court. Attorney Barabino, moved the case so that she could close out the case sooner that it had been originally planned. Once at court, the understanding and reasonable district attorneys reviewed her background and engaged in a discussion, agreeing to a continued without-a-finding for 12 months and 45-day loss of license. They also agreed to find her Not Responsible for the Mobile Phone use ticket. Once in front of the judge, Attorney Barabino argued for the above disposition AND for her to be found NOT RESPONSIBLE on the marked lanes violation, to which the judge agreed too.
RESULT: 1st OFFENDERS Disposition, NOT RESPONSIBLE Both Civil Infractions.

Two Counts of Indecent Assault and Battery, NOT GUILTY

September 13th 2018
Indecent Assault & Battery Under 14
Indecent Assault & Battery Under 14
Client was long-time senior government manager for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Highly publicized accusations cost him nearly everything, with even the Governor of Massachusetts making his position on case known to the media. This was the second round of accusations against client of these charges. After three days of trial, 14 witnesses, exhibits, computer evidence, testimony, and the defendant taking the stand in his defense, client received a verdict of "not guilty" on both counts.
RESULT: Both Counts, NOT GUILTY.

Second Offense OUI, DISMISSED

January 30th 2018
2nd OFFENSE OUI- Liquor or .08%
Leave Scene of Property Damage
Disorderly Conduct
Resisting Arrest
License Suspended, For OUI, Operating with Chapter 90 Section 23
Client, a young woman who was on probation for operating under the influence, was charged a second time for the offense. She had a list of additional charges that followed after her arrest. The case involved several eyewitnesses and statements. A comprehensive interview followed from the defense and eventually trial was scheduled. On day of trial, Commonwealth stated that they simply did not have the evidence to support the requisite element of “operation”. Case Dismissed. All Charges Dropped.
RESULT: ALL CHARGES DISMISSED AT DAY OF TRIAL

Violation of Abuse Prevention Order, NOT GUILTY AFTER TRIAL

September 5th 2017
Abuse Prevention Order
Client, a hard-working father, had been in a romantic relationship with a woman years ago. When the relationship ended, she secured a restraining order which prohibited him from being within 100 yards of her at all times. According to her, while she was working at her place of employment, he went to the place of employment and stared at her in violation of the order. Defense agreed that he did briefly walk by her store where she was working, but that he did not know she worked there and he was as surprised as she was to discover her there. Although a strong case for the defense, the Commonwealth felt otherwise. The Commonwealth brought the case to trial and even obtained prior allegations against the defendant to show his “bad acts”. At trial, judge ruled that the Commonwealth could not admit the prior bad acts, as a guilty verdict would surely mean deportation for the otherwise, innocent defendant. However, after witness after witness testified, a not guilty verdict was returned.
RESULT: NOT GUILTY AFTER TRIAL

Threat to Murder, NOT GUILTY

April 14th 2017
Assault Chapter
Threats to Commit Murder
Assault and Battery

Strangulation or Suffocation
Client had been previously convicted of seriously abusing his girlfriend many decades ago. Now, once again, she accused him of the same crime. Client denied those new accusations, but also realized that based on his past conduct and the credible nature of the evidence, that a plea was preferable since it would mitigate the otherwise harsh sentence that the judge has proposed. However ultimately, the case went to trial. Client was convicted of all counts except threats to commit murder, for which he was found not guilty.
RESULT: Threat to Murder, NOT GUILTY.

Assault and Battery, Strangulation, 58A DANGEROUS HEARING OVERTURNED, NOT GUILTY OF ALL CHARGES

March 28th 2017
Assault and Battery
Assault and Battery
Strangulation or Suffocation
Client was a hardworking federal employee. He was charged with Strangulation of his ex-girlfriend, Assault and Battery on his Girlfriend, and Assault and Battery on another involved in the incident in question. It was alleged that he was angry at his ex-girlfriend after discovering text messages from her former spouse on her phone. It was alleged that he came into her bedroom, pushed her friend into a dresser, and then proceeded to choke ex-girlfriend for nearly a minute. The district attorney applied for and received a Dangerous Hearing. Based on facts of the case, it was determined that client was too dangerous to be released into society. Attorney Barabino appealed that ruling and was successful. Client was then released pending trial. At trial, the jury ruled him not guilty of all the charges.
RESULT: 58A DANGEROUS HEARING OVERTURNED, Client released Pending Trial, NOT GUILTY OF ALL CHARGES.

Shoplifting, NO COMPLAINT TO ISSUE

October 28th 2016
Shoplifting by Asportation
Client was a young man who stole and was caught doing so. He admitted to doing what he did, but felt embarrassed and apologetic. Fortunately, he was given a clerk magistrate hearing. He hired Attorney Barabino, who took him to the hearing and acknowledged his wrongdoing and asked for consideration. The police and court determined that based on various factors that they would not issue the charges. No complaint to issue. Never appears on a record.
RESULT: NO COMPLAINT TO ISSUE

Assault and Battery, CONDITIONAL PROBATION WITHOUT GUILT

July 12th 2016
Assault and Battery
Client was a hard working electrician accused by family member of assault and battery. The family member was relentless in her pursuit, alleging long term abuse. In this event she alleged that long term abuse by an alcohol abusing family member resulted in a bruise on her leg and PTSD. After intensive discovery pursuits of relevant materials, the case was scheduled for trial. On the day of trial, a last minute deal was struck whereby the defendant was to admit to “sufficient facts” for the charge and agree to be on probation for a period of a year. He would also complete and anger management program and alcohol screens—only if an independent evaluator determines he has a problem with alcohol. Otherwise, if the conditions are met, after one year of time, his case will be terminated with a dismissal.
RESULT: Assault and Battery, CONDITIONAL PROBATION WITHOUT GUILT.

Conspiracy to Violate Drug Law, Intimidation, BOTH CHARGES DROPPED

May 10th 2016
Conspiracy to Violate Drug Law
Intimidation of a Witness

According to jail security, client, who was an inmate, was involved in a scheme to have drugs brought into the jail. He was a target because he had been involved in drug dealing before. The case was developed with great detail by the investigators. They assembled recordings of phone calls, collected physical evidence, and found a participating co-conspirator to admit to the scheme. Then yet another co-conspirator admitted to the scheme. The drugs were sent to a laboratory for testing and were positive and the case was almost ready for trial. As the case proceeded, one of the four co-conspirators plead out to a sentence; then a second co-conspirator admitted his guilt and then another plead guilty. Only Attorney Barabino’s client remained, who had no such intention to plead guilty. Although he had been involved with drugs in the past—he was not guilty and was not going to admit to being so. Soon, after a separate motion to suppress the identification was held to preserve his rights moving forward, a trial date was set. The day of trial came and the required co-conspirator to prove the crime did not appear and the case was dismissed in full.
RESULT: All Charges DROPPED/DISMISSED