» Trial

November 16^th 2015
Firearm Carrying with Ammunition
Firearm Carrying without a license
The defendant was a passenger in his mother's car when it was pulled over by Massachusetts State Police. When State Police noticed he wasn’t wearing a seat belt, they wrote him a citation. When they wrote him a citation, they noticed he had active warrants. The police testified that when defendant provided his license to police, they noticed that he slid a small black pistol in between the seats. After the Defendant was arrested the police located and secured a small black revolver. After a motion to suppress, the case was set for trial. Ballistics experts, fingerprint experts, and various witnesses were called. The coordination was tedious, but all the pieces needed to be in place for the trial to begin. After five separate trial dates, the court dismissed the case, without prejudice. However, if the case is brought back to court, Attorney Barabino can move to dismiss the charges for failure to comply with time standards.
RESULT: DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE ON ALL CHARGES. Upon re-applying for charges in future, Motion to DISMISS to be considered by court

May 21^th 2015
Assault and Battery Chapter
Assault and Battery Chapter
Assault and Battery with Dangerous Weapon
Strangulation or Suffocation
Assault and Battery with Dangerous Weapon
Assault and Battery with Dangerous Weapon
Client had been on probation when he was charged with the above offenses. The Commonwealth sought to invoke a No Bail “58A” detention prior to trial. The probation department also sought a detainer to hold him without bail. He wasn’t going anywhere, and on Attorney Barabino's advice, he advised client not to challenge the hold prior to any trial. The reason not to challenge it was because he would not be successful and it could preserve testimonial evidence against him at trial. That advice proved essential since at trial the Commonwealth was unable to prove their case with the evidence they had. The District Attorney sought a second trial date to obtain prison phone calls. Once that proved unsuccessful, at another trial date, a dismissal of all charges was obtained. The court declined to invoke the suspended sentence on the probation matter. Client was given a very short jail term and will be released within 4-6 weeks, with no convictions.
RESULT: ALL CHARGES DISMISSED. Probation Reinstated with NO IMPOSITION OF TWO-YEAR SUSPENDED SENTENCE.

May 19^th 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.

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.

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.

August 7^th 2014
Indecent Assault and Battery Child Under 14
Assault and Battery
Assault and Battery
Client was charged with kissing an eleven year old on the lips and assaulting and beating her as well as assaulting and beating his pregnant girlfriend. As the case was moving though the court system, he was once again charged for assaulting and beating his girlfriend. Via a Martins Hearing, those secondary charges were dropped, leaving the remaining sex related charge and the remaining assault and battery to argue. The girlfriend had been adamant that nothing physical occurred when she was interviewed by police and kept that position right up to the day of trial. At the day of trial, the young woman who was the complainant of the sex charge did not appear for court and the girlfriend who was now the defendant’s wife asserted her marital privilege, leaving the cases dismissed. The sex charge would be a required sex offender registration with the sex offender registry, but since it was dismissed, that will never occur. All charges dismissed.
RESULT: ALL CHARGES DROPPED. CASES DISMISSED. NO SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION.

June 11^th 2014
Assault and Battery
A young, classy U.S. Marine war veteran and college student was charged with Domestic Assault and Battery against his wife. According to Police, he spit in her face and pushed her with two hands. Attorney Barabino brought the matter to trial, and at the day of trial, the wife asserted her privilege not to testify against her husband. With no other evidence, the judge allowed a Motion to Dismiss, and the defendant was discharged. Case dismissed.
RESULT: Domestic Assault and Battery, DISMISSED.

May 27^th 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.