» Salem District Court

June 27^th 2013 

Violation of Abuse Prevention Order
Client was a young man with a supportive family. According to police, he contacted an ex-girlfriend after she properly obtained a no-contact restraining order against him. According to the court order presented in court—the Defendant was not to call or contact the victim. At trial, the young lady whom he was supposed to have no contact emotionally recalled him calling her after the order was obtained—a direct violation. After cross-examination, the Defendant rested his case and several hours later the jury returned a verdict of not-guilty. 

RESULT: Jury Verdict, NOT-GUILTY

June 12^th 2013
Drug, Possession to Distribute Class B Chapter 94C Section 32A (a)
Client was a retired US Air Force officer with over twenty year of service. Client had been attempting to assist his girlfriend’s daughter in her struggle with drug addiction. Client and girlfriend were making attempts to detoxify daughter and purchased drugs so they could monitor her detoxification. While they were picking her up at a drug house, police surprised the group and arrested all three. The police based their arrest on the High Crime Area where they were, statements made, and an admission of drugs in their possession and other factors. Despite the reasons for being there, the police were not interested in any reduction of the charge. Attorney Barabino sought a full evidentiary hearing to challenge the constitutionally of the arrest. Today, the court issued their legal analysis indicating that Attorney Barabino’s argument was correct and that the drugs could not be used in the prosecution of the case---meaning the drugs seized were “suppressed”, or thrown out. Case Dismissed.
RESULT: Motion to Suppress ALLOWED, CASE DISMISSED.

March 29^th 2013
Leave Scene of Property Damage Chapter 90, Section 24 (2)(a)
2nd OFFENSE OUI- Liquor or .08% Chapter 90 Section 24(1) (a) (1)
According to police, client had rammed into a vehicle and left the scene of the accident. Police responded to the scene and immediately noticed, while on patrol, that the client's vehicle had damage similar that that which would be described. When police pulled the vehicle over they noticed paint matched the vehicle that was hit. They also noticed paint on the other vehicle and noticed that it matched as well. The police spoke to client and stated that his speech was slurred; he had to hold on to the side of the truck for balance; his eyes were bloodshot and glassy; his breath smelt like booze; and he was unsteady on his feet. Moreover, the client had Budweiser cans opened and unopened, strewn throughout the vehicle. Client simply wanted to gain his license back, but the District Attorney of Essex County sought jail time instead. The Commonwealth presented five separate witnesses. At sentencing, the DA requested this hard working single father be sent to prison for two years suspended and serve a full year committed in jail. In the end, the judge agreed with Attorney Barabino and denied the Commonwealth request. Judge simply placed the Defendant on probation with a brief 14 day-impatient program. All the civil violation were found not responsible and the verdict on the Leaving the Scene was a clear and resounding "not guilty".
RESULT: Leaving the Scene of Property Damage, NOT GUILTY AFTER TRIAL, All Civil Violations found NOT RESPONSIBLE. NO JAIL FOR OUI CHARGE

March 5^th 2013
Disturbing the Peace Chapter 272 Section 53
Dangerous Weapon, Carry, Subsequent Offense Chapter 269 Section 10(B) & (D)
Client was a hard working electrician. He was charged with Disturbing the Peace and Possession of a Dangerous Weapon, Subsequent Offense. The second charge was required to be prosecuted in Superior Court and State Prison was mandatory upon conviction. However, the District Attorney allowed the case to remain in District Court and prosecuted it as a first offense. Attorney Barabino filed a Motion to Dismiss the charges in their entirety. The motion, complete with a lengthy memorandum of law and supporting affidavit, was provided to the court and a hearing was scheduled. After the motion, the court agreed that the motion should be allowed and the case dismissed. The District Attorney simply agreed to dismiss the Disturbing the Peace charge after the hearing.
RESULT: Motion to Dismiss ALLOWED, CASE DISMISSED.

December 20^th 2012
Drug, Possession to Distribute Class D Chapter 94C Section 32C(a)
Client was a young man with no criminal record. According to police, client was in a motor vehicle when police approached and saw what they described as smoke emitting from the windows. The police searched and interviewed all the people in the vehicle. During the search of the vehicle, they discovered two scales used for weighing marijuana, and marijuana itself. The amount of marijuana combined with the scales and statements resulted in the arrest of client and another. A Motion to Suppress was filed and testimony was elicited from the arresting officers as well as the parties charged with this crime. After a hearing, the court took the matter under advisement. At the next court date, the court issued their ruling, declaring that the police acted unconstitutionally and that the evidence should be thrown out as inadmissible. As a result, the charges were dismissed.
RESULT: Motion to Suppress, ALLOWED, CASE DISMISSED.

December 13^th 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.

December 13^th 2012
Yield at Intersection, Fail Chapter 89 Section 8
License Suspended, Operating Motor Vehicle with c90 §23
Leave Scene of Property Damage Chapter 90, Section 24 (2)(a)
Use of Motor Vehicle Without Authority Chapter 90, Section 24 (2)(a)
Client was a heavy machinery operator who was charged with multiple criminal and civil driving offenses. According to police, client drove into another vehicle and both motor vehicles were destroyed. Client had a suspended license for drinking and driving and had been charged prior to the incident in question. A guilty conviction after trial would have almost certainly meant jail time. The entire case hinged on an obvious identification flaw, and the Commonwealth admitted that flaw at the day of trial. As a result, they offered to dismiss nearly all the charges if client would admit to a lenient penalty on one of the charges. Client stood fast and refused the generous offer. In the end, the Commonwealth simply dismissed the entire case.
RESULT: ALL CRIMINAL AND CIVIL CHARGES DISMISSED.

July 18^th 2012
Assault and Battery
Vandalize Property
Client, a former NHL Player and Vietnam War veteran, was charged with assault and battery and vandalizing property. According to the police report, a young boy in the neighborhood was acting unruly and assaultive towards other young boys and girls. Client, witnessing this dangerous behavior, took action by restraining the young boy—leaving a small mark and (possibly) ripping his shirt. Fortunately, a seasoned and experienced district attorney was assigned to the case, who after speaking and doing her own investigation, determined that the actions of defendant should not be criminally prosecuted---the case was dismissed.
RESULT: BOTH CHARGES DISMISSED.