» Witness

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

Motion to Suppress Evidence, FILED, CASE DISMISSED PRIOR TO HEARING

August 2nd 2017
Conspiracy
Attempt to Evade Tax
Client was in possession of a large amount of tobacco products from a southern state—without license or stamp. The amount of tobacco was substantial. Immigration consequences if the case was not successful. Several court dates led to the filing of a motion to suppress evidence. At that key hearing, Commonwealth declared that they would not be able to secure a necessary witness and were then forced to dismiss the entire case.
RESULT: Motion to Suppress Evidence, FILED. Case DISMISSED PRIOR TO HEARING.

Sex Offense, SORB LEVEL LOWERED FROM LEVEL III TO NO LEVEL, NO REGISTRATION NECESSARY

August 15th 2015
Client wanted the best SORB attorney he could find. Client was a young man who was accused in a different state. The SORB preliminarily classified him as a LEVEL III offender—the highest risk to reoffend. As a juvenile, client was caught in a FBI sting and accused of possession and distribution of child pornography. Moreover, he had an unsubstantiated sex-related accusation and intermittent drug involvement (Note: drug and alcohol use is a disinhibitor and weighed accordingly in their formal decision making process). In the end, client's family hired Attorney Barabino. Attorney Barabino spend countless hours interviewing and preparing a witness. Attorney Barabino prepared and submitted nearly 21 pages of written motions detailing various legal issues to the Board. In the end, a full and fair evidentiary hearing was held. The petitioner was allowed, through his counsel and witnesses, to inform the board of lawful defenses. Client receives notice that no registration is required.
RESULT: Client’s LEVEL III Status, LOWERED FROM LEVEL III TO NO LEVEL. NO REGISTRATION NECESSARY.

OUI-drugs, CASE DISMISSED

September 2nd 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.

Attempt to Commit Crime, NOT GUILTY, Disorderly Conduct, CHARGE FILED FOR A PERIOD OF TWO MONTHS

October 9th 2012
Attempt to Commit Crime Chapter 274 Section 6
Disorderly Conduct Chapter 272 Section 53
Client, a retired airlines employee, was charged with attempting to commit a crime and disorderly conduct. According to police, client had entered the hallway of an apartment building and repeatedly struck the door with her foot. The occupant watched this occur through her peephole and after increased concern, called police. Police then stopped the Defendant down the street from the apartment complex. When interviewed by them, client gave conflicting accounts of what occurred and she was arrested for attempting to break in to the apartment and disorderly conduct. At trial, the District Attorney attempted to modify the complaint to reflect a subsequent charge of disorderly conduct since she had been convicted before this date in a separate incident. The judge denied that request and the client ultimately passed no time in jail for that charge. After trial, the evidence of the witnesses failed to support a charge of breaking and entering and the client was acquitted.
RESULT: NOT-GUILTY of Attempt to Commit a Crime Charge, Disorderly Conduct Charge FILED for a period of two Months.

Assault with a Dangerous Weapon, Disorderly Conduct, MOTION TO SUPPRESS ALLOWED, ASSAULT WITH A DANGEROUS WEAPON DROPPED

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.