The criminal justice system can be daunting, but you don’t need to go through it alone. Our Criminal lawyers are here to guide you every step of the way.
Contact Our Firm
Charges of Possession for the Purpose, Trafficking in Cocaine, and Proceeds, withdrawn prior to trial. A.K. was alleged to have been part of a criminal organization and engaged in active steps for the trafficking of cocaine. Joseph Neuberger was retained as the criminal lawyer Toronto to defend the case. Extensive disclosure was provided including wiretap and surveillance evidence. After detailed review, and extensive pre-trial discussions, the Crown agreed with Joseph Neuberger that at the highest all the Crown could establish was association but NO active participation or even knowledge. As such all charges were withdrawn.
Client with possession for the purpose of trafficking (Schedule 1) after client and friend were allegedly observed by undercover police appearing to sell drugs in a hotel lobby in Brampton. Police stopped client’s vehicle and searched vehicle and arrested client and co-accused passenger. Mr. Navarrete was retained and he conducted a Crown Pre-trial with the Federal Crown and Mr. Navarrete was able to show that the police conduct and observations were problematic for the Crown’s case and raised various Charter issues including an illegal search and seizure, arbitrary detention and an illegal arrest. Mr. Navarrete also raised the issue of Crown not being able to prove knowledge of the drugs by his client. Client provided a statutory declaration and all charges withdrawn by Federal Crown in Brampton.
Charges of Importation of Cocaine and Conspiracy to Import Cocaine stayed in the Ontario Court of Justice, Brampton prior to trial. The client runs an importing business mainly with food staples sourced from Jamaica. The client ordered three shipments of food items. Each shipment was seized by Canada Border Security Agency and the RCMP set up a controlled delivery. The three deliveries contained over 11.8 kilos of cocaine. The client was arrested. He retained Joseph Neuberger as his defence lawyer. Joseph Neuberger had an extensive interview of the client and then reviewed the past three years of orders and shipments. It turned out that over three years the client was ordering similar food shipments from the exact same companies in Jamaica and in fact was using the same logistics company. Thus, it was odd that these three orders from the exact same companies and shipping agency would turn up with Cocaine. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger ordered the video of the search of his client’s residence and the police captured on video multiple files of C.L. regarding business dealings with the exact same companies. Nothing was seized by the police. Disclosure was sought from the Crown about information on the shipping company and the source companies in Jamaica. Four requests were made and the RCMP made no effort to obtain any information about the businesses in Jamaica. Eventually, defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger set the matter down for a trial on the drug charges, set for a five day trial. The matter was set beyond 18 months, the Jordan decision timeline. Accordingly, an Application to stay was brought as a pre-trial motion. Well prior to trial discussions occurred between Joseph Neuberger an the assigned prosecutor about the drug charges, and it became apparent to the Crown that C.L. might have been an unintended recipient of the cocaine. After consideration of reasonable prospect of conviction and the delay, the Crown agreed to stay all charges.
Charges of Possession of Marijuana and Possession for the Purpose of Trafficking in Percocet Tablets withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice Milton. The client was 18 and parked at a MacDonald’s last spring. A cruiser detected an odour of marijuana coming from the car. The police officer approached and spoke to S.S. who readily admitted to have 20 grams of Marijuana. The officer placed S.S. under arrest, and then searched the car. After an extensive search found a pill bottle with opiate based drugs. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger was retained. After receiving the disclosure, and reviewing the police officer notes, Joseph Neuberger conducted a series of pre-trials. It was explained that not only was possession of marijuana imminently becoming legal in Canada, the officer committed a number of Charter breaches, including some ambiguity as to whether the officer actually smelled marijuana to first give authority to detain S.S.. In addition, no rights to counsel were provided and the search of the vehicle was extensive and not merely as a search incident to arrest. As such, Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger alleged violations of section 9, 8 and 10(b) of the Charter. After filing an application and more discussions with the Crown, the charges were withdrawn.
Charges of possession of heroin and marihuana withdrawn prior to trial. Client was stopped by military police while driving near a military installation ostensibly for speeding. The officer conducted a warrantless, illegal search of the client’s vehicle. Client hired Christopher Assie as his defence lawyer. Counsel demonstrated to the Crown the variety of Charter breaches the officers committed and convinced the Crown to simply withdraw the charges without setting the matter down for trial in exchange for the client completing some community service hours up-front. Client, who had no criminal record, now maintains a clean record as the charges were simply withdrawn.
Charges of Possession for the Purpose of Trafficking in Fentanyl, Possession for the Purpose of Trafficking in Oxy-Contin x 2, and Proceeds of Crime stayed in the Superior Court of Justice, Brampton, after a three day pre-trial motion based on Charter violations of the client’s section 10(b), 8 and 7 rights. The client was charged with having stolen large amounts of prescription medication from a pharmacy with the assistance of the pharmacy assistant. The police had surveillance on the pharmacy and arrested D.B. as he walked from the pharmacy to his vehicle with a backpack full of prescription medication. The police gave him his rights to counsel, searched him and obtained his drivers licence and then asked him some questions including his address. Police then attended the home address and arrested two more people and laid additional charges. D.B. hired Joseph Neuberger, John Navarrete and Christopher Assie, all of the firm of Neuberger & Partners, as his defence team. The Crown initially was seeking a ten year jail sentence. After careful scrutiny of the police officer notes and a detailed cross-examination of officers at the preliminary hearing, Charter challenges were drafted for various violations but most significantly section 10(b) – the right to counsel upon detention or arrest. A detailed Notice, factum and case book was filed and a three day motion was conducted wherein Joseph Neuberger cross-examined the officers as to their actions in relation to Mr. D.B. It became apparent that after Mr. D.B. was read his rights to counsel he asked to speak to a specific lawyer, thus immediately seeking legal advice. The police suspended D.B.’s right to access counsel and questioned him about an address that was a substantial piece of information to further the investigation and obtain a search warrant for his house. John Navarrete conducted the preliminary hearing and Christopher Assie drafted the materials for the motion. Neuberger & Partners takes a team approach to fully explore all possible issues and raise all possible defences including constitutional violations. After three days of cross-examination of the police witnesses, the Crown agreed with Joseph Neuberger that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction and all charges were stayed.
Client found not guilty of possession for the purpose of trafficking in cocaine after four day trial. Police executed a search warrant at the client’s home. The home is a large 4 bedroom house where the client resided with her mother, brother and a tenant. Police found a substantial amount of cocaine in 19 packets hidden in a purse, in a bag inside an handbag of G.D. G.D. retained Joseph Neuberger as her defence counsel. Joseph Neuberger carefully reviewed the evidence and interviewed other occupants of the house. At trial, Joseph Neuberger argued that the drugs were secretly hidden. Not in plain view. There was no direct evidence of handling of the drugs. No finger prints. In fact a scale also found in the room was not tested for cocaine residue and Neuberger argued the scale would not support a finding of knowledge. There was no evidence that G.D. was involved in trafficking nor any evidence of a lavish lifestyle. Neuberger prepared the client to testify and she told the court that she had a full time job and was out of the home much of the week and weekend. Neuberger discovered a text message from one of the officers to G.D. brother sent after the search. The text had content that showed the brother knew about the cocaine but that is was not his sister’s. The text was not disclosed by the police. The text was used in cross examination to raise a theory that the brother secretly stashed the drugs in his sister’s bedroom. The room infact was always unlocked and other people coming to the house had access. Neuberger argued that there were other reasonable inferences consistent with innocence. After all while stash drugs in a room G.D. was often away from and had always left unlocked? After extensive argument the client was found not guilty of the charge.
Charges of Importation, Trafficking, and Possession for the Purpose were withdrawn prior to trial in Brampton. Z.C. was alleged to have participated in a controlled delivery of a substantial amount of heroin to the residence that he was staying as a student. John Navarrete raised issues of knowledge by Z.C. of the actual substance involved and triable issues involving the status of a C.I. by the police. As a result, the Public Prosecution Service of Canada withdrew all the charges against Z.C.
Charges of Trafficking, Possession for the Purpose x 5 and Possession, withdrawn prior to setting trial date. M.B. was alleged to have been in a hand to hand sale with an undercover police officer. Later search warrants were obtained and locations connected to M.B. and G.X. were searched where quantities of drugs were seized. Both were charged with the above offences. Joseph Neuberger and Christopher Assie were retained as their defence lawyers. Detailed disclosure requests were made and a defence review of the officers involved in the case was undertaken. Given various specific requests made by Mr. Neuberger and Mr. Assie for sensitive disclosure, the Crown withdrew the charges.
Client found not guilty of Possession of Cocaine for the Purpose of Trafficking after two day trial in the Ontario Court of Justice. C.S. was at work when a search warrant was executed. The search was unrelated to C.S. but was in relation to the owner of the auto shop where the client worked. During the police search in a tool cabinet used by C.S. a large quantity of cocaine was found. Police seized the video surveillance equipment. After reviewing two weeks of video tape the police determined the C.S. had effective control of the tool cabinet and on one occasion C.S. is seen to have handled the bag with the drugs inside. As a result, police charged C.S. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger was retained. Joseph Neuberger met with the client and then interviewed the owner and co-workers. After review of the police investigation it was clear the police had done a deficient investigation. There was no other evidence that C.S. was involved in drug trafficking or for that matter had any knowledge that the bag had cocaine in it. At trial Joseph Neuberger cross-examined all of the police officers and the owner of the auto shop. It was clear after cross-examination that C.S. did not have exclusive control of the tool cabinet and in fact another employee had found the bag with the drugs in a car they were working on and was told by the owner to put the bag in the tool cabinet. C.S. had no idea the bag had drugs and as such the Crown conceded a trial that C.S. ought to be found not guilty.
Past results are not necessarily indicative of future results and that the amount recovered and other litigation outcomes will vary according to the facts in individual cases.
