» Trial

January 23^rd 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.

December 5^th 2013
Malicious Destruction of Property
Malicious Destruction of Property
Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon
The defendant was at his home when police came and began an investigation into an allegation that he shot an elderly man with a BB gun, twice. When police interviewed the mother of defendant she declared that they were just out on the roof of their home shooting. Police recovered the BB gun and defendant and his mother made statements that were not helpful. Moreover, police had received other complaints of a similar nature the day before from this location, relating to the gun. A Motion to Suppress the statements made by the defendant's was filed. The judge allowed the defense's motion. After nearly a year, the case came to trial, and the limited evidence resulted in a full dismissal.
RESULT: Motion to Suppress Statements, ALLOWED, CASE DISMISSED AT TRIAL.

October 22^nd 2013
False Report of Motor Vehicle Theft
Client was a young, college educated professional who was charged with falsifying a stolen motor vehicle report. Although the young woman had been in previous entanglements with the law, she did not have a criminal record. If she were to be found guilty of this charge she would be a convicted felon. The consequences would be disastrous. After moving the case through the court for nearly a year and half, the trial date arrived. At trial, there was an option for a deal that became acceptable for the District Attorney, which included a reduction in the charge, as long as the young woman were to engage in therapy, remain drug and alcohol free with random screens, and pay a monthly fee to the court. The result of this disposition gave the defendant a chance to prove herself, remain an employed and productive member of society, while moving forward with her life drug free. A win-win for all involved.
RESULT: CHARGE REDUCED, 12 MONTH CONDITIONAL PROBATION, DISMISSAL at End of Year.

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.

August 21^nd 2012
Assault and Battery Chapter 265 Section 15?
Possession to Distribute Class “D” Chapter 94C Section 32(c)
Client was a landscaper who was in warrant status as a result of not reporting to his probation officer. Moreover, he was charged with new crimes of Assault and Battery and Distributing Class “D” (marijuana). Attorney Barabino brought to the charges straight to trial---little time to waste since there would be consequences from his probation officer if he was convicted of new charges. At trial, the Commonwealth was unable to secure the necessary witnesses to present their evidence, and the Assault and Battery was dismissed. Attorney Barabino next filed what is called waiver of jury to allow the judge to hear the remaining evidence for distribution. Once that was complete, the District Attorney simply assented that their probability of securing a verdict was low—so low that they agreed to dismiss the distribution charge in its entirety.
RESULT: Assault and Battery Charge DISMISSED. Distribution Charge DISMISSED.

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.

April 12th 2012
Assault with a Dangerous Weapon Chapter 265 Section 15B (b)
Disorderly Conduct Chapter 272 Section 53
Client was unemployed and was charged with Assault with a Dangerous Weapon as well as Disorderly Conduct. Police allege that he was purchasing alcohol when he had a dispute with another gentleman and that man's female friend. Eventually a knife was alleged to have been displayed by client and client was subsequently arrested. Initially, client refused to admit to wrongdoing to the police—yet when police interviewed him a second time, he admitted threatening the other man. However, when police interviewed client that second time, he was not given his Miranda Rights. When that was discovered, Attorney Barabino filed for a Motion to Suppress all the statements made, since the police did not “mirandize” client. The court, after reviewing and hearing testimony, agreed with Attorney Barabino and allowed his Motion to Suppress the admission of guilt. At the day of trial, the witnesses recanted their testimony---the District Attorney simply dropped the charge of Assault with a Dangerous Weapon.
RESULT: Motion to Suppress, ALLOWED, Assault with a Dangerous Weapon, DROPPED.