» Salem District Court

January 12^th 2016
Domestic Assault and Battery
Client was a hard working nurse, wife, and mother. According to witnesses, she drank a bit too much and slapped her husband several times. Department of Children and Family Services were called but declined to investigate further. At arraignment, Commonwealth sought random alcohol screens and Attorney Barabino argued they were not necessary as a condition of release. The court agreed with Attorney Barabino, and the case was dismissed at trial with a marital privilege exception.
RESULT: DISMISSAL

April 14^th 2015
Assault and Battery
Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon
Client was pleasant and easy-going young father from a supportive and close family. Client was charged with assaulting and battering his girlfriend, two separate counts. According to police, they had come to the couple's home two separate times during one night. The police had suspicions about domestic violence, but no arrests were made. However, police were called a third time after the couple were now in their car arguing on the side of a road nearby. The female had bloodied, swollen eyes, and scratches, and the client had blood on his many rings on his fingers. The police arrested client, and a full evidentiary hearing was held for a dangerous hearing or 58A hearing. At that hearing, the judge heard from many witnesses, including client's sister from Florida. After a hearing, the judge declared that the client should be released pending trial and should not be held without bail. At trial, the commonwealth was unable to move forward with the evidence they had and the court allowed a dismissal of all charges.
RESULT: Dangerous Hearing (58A) SUCCESSFUL, Client Released Pending Trial, CASE DISMISSED.

April 8^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. Included were conflicting statements by accused, a parking clerk that stated she could barely stand, and finally police officers that 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” or “not guilty” beyond a reasonable doubt of the crime charged. 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 would give them one more time 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.
RESULT: Rodriguez “Blow Out” Charge, HUNG JURY, RETRIAL TO BE DETERMINED.

December 2^nd 2014
Possession to Distribute Class D
Client was a passenger driving in a motor vehicle with his friends. They were also under the eye of a special response unit or a specialized anti-drugs investigation unit. That unit converged on the vehicle and confiscated nearly 100 grams of marijuana, scales, ledgers for recording transactions, and over $1000 in cash. Attorney Barabino requested a challenge to the motor vehicle stop via a Motion to Suppress evidence. Once that motion, affidavits, and memorandum of law were filed, the police were brought into court for a hearing. The court issued a decision after a month’s wait indicating that the evidence should be thrown out. As a result, the case will be dismissed.
RESULT: Motion to Suppress All Evidence, ALLOWED. CASE DISMISSED.

September 26th 2014
Drug, Possession Class B (Cocaine)
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. However, in the end, Attorney Barabino and his client were confident that they could prove an illegal search and seizure. That confidence was actualized when an agreement was reached without even having a hearing, whereby the Conspiracy charge would be dismissed outright and the possession would also be dismissed upon payment of a $150 penalty.
RESULT: Class “A” Drug Possession and Conspiracy, DISMISSED.

September 25^th 2014
Larceny over $250.00
Larceny over $250.00
Larceny over $250.00
Shoplifting
Larceny under $250.00
Larceny under $250.00
Client was pursuing his Masters in Business Administration (MBA) out of state. Prior to him enrolling in his program, he had been employed at Nordstrom’s department store. While employed at the store, he became involved with several others in taking items from the store that didn’t belong to them. The arrangement was complex, so the investigation was consequentially extensive and detailed. The charges were, in part, felonies, which was simply unacceptable for someone who intended to have a future as a professional. The District Attorney sought guilty convictions. Attorney Barabino brought the matter before a judge and the judge agreed with Attorney Barabino. Client convictions would be dismissed if defendant were to pay back the $4800.00 within eighteen months. Also, the court allowed defendant's probation to be administrative so he would not have to physically appear in the courthouse and could leave to attend his out of state MBA program.
RESULT: NO FELONY CONVICTION, Upon Completion of Probation, ADMINISTRATIVE PROBATION ALLOWED.

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.

April 24^th 2014
Negligent Operation of Motor Vehicle
Marked Lanes Violation
Client was in a one-person car accident. He was interviewed by state police and eventually arrested and charged with Negligent Operation of a Motor Vehicle and a Non-Criminal charge of Marked Lanes Violation. Since being charged, the defendant's motor vehicle insurance skyrocketed and he faced a mandatory future license loss, fines and fees, and shockingly, a potential two year sentence in a house of correction. After interviewing client and examining the scene and related materials, Attorney Barabino filed a Motion to Suppress the statements made by defendant at his hospital bed. Once the motion was filed, a hearing date was scheduled and all the parties, including police, were required to appear before a judge to hear evidence. Fortunately for the defendant, an experienced district attorney had reviewed the file and after speaking with the officer and reviewing all the facts, allowed a straight dismissal of the criminal charge and a "not responsible" for the civil charge of a Marked Lanes Violation.
RESULT: Motion to Suppress, FILED, Criminal Case DISMISSED. Civil Violation Declared, NOT RESPONSIBLE.