Regina v. F.B. (2021) – Second-Degree Murder Bail
F.B. was charged with second-degree murder. F.B. hired a lawyer (not Christopher Assié or anyone from Neuberger & Partners LLP) at first. His lawyer applied for bail and it was denied on the basis that the judge agreed with the Crown that it was a “strong case” against him. His lawyer had applied for bail before getting all of the disclosure. After losing the bail hearing, F.B. hired Christopher Assié. The first step was to review the bail judge’s decision and to acquire all of the disclosure. Christopher Assié appealed the bail decision to the Court of Appeal and was successful. The Court of Appeal overturned the decision denying F.B. bail. F.B.’s previous counsel’s tactical error in not waiting for all of the disclosure cost F.B. several additional months in jail before the decision could be overturned.
Regina v. F.B. (2021) – Second-Degree Murder Discharge at a Preliminary Inquiry
F.B. was charged with second-degree murder. F.B. got into an argument with the deceased at a party. At the end of the evening, F.B. approached the deceased while the deceased was sitting in a car before leaving the party. They had a heated argument. A third party approached F.B. and the deceased and began to attempt to rob the deceased of his jewellery. Unexpectedly, the third party pulled out a gun and shot the deceased. The police suspected F.B.’s friend was the shooter. Both were charged with second-degree murder. F.B. hired Christopher Assié to represent him. At the preliminary inquiry, Christopher Assié was able to undermine the reliability of the eyewitness evidence and demonstrated to the court that there was no evidence on which a reasonable jury properly instructed could find that F.B. was a party to the offence of murder or any other offence. The judge agreed and F.B. was discharged at the preliminary inquiry and will not have to go to trial.
Regina v. S.A. (2020) – First-Degree Murder Bail
S.A. was charged with first-degree murder. S.A. hired Christopher Assié as her counsel. In order for an accused to be granted bail while facing a charge of murder, the accused has to make an application before a Superior Court Judge and bears the onus to show why he or she should not be detained in jail while awaiting her trial as there is a presumption that a person accused of murder should not be granted bail. Understandably, many accused wish to move for bail as soon as possible. Christopher Assié understood that the best way to get bail is to be able to point to weaknesses in the Crown’s case. He convinced S.A. to be patient and wait until most of the disclosure was provided in order to review it closely and be in a position to show the judge that the Crown’s case was weaker than they initially believed it to be. By not rushing to do a bail hearing on a serious charge, Christopher Assié was able to present their best arguments in a clear, coherent and compelling manner. S.A. was granted bail on a charge of first-degree murder.
R. v. M.M. (2020)
Client charged with Robbery and Possession of Offensive Weapon (X2) for an alleged gang related incident. The client retained John Navarrete of Neuberger & Partners LLP to represent him on these serious charges. Mr. Navarrete put together various immigration documents, birth certificates and other materials, and provided them to the assigned Crown Attorney at Old City Hall. Mr. Navarrete argued that this was a case of mistaken identity and requested that the Crown consider if any reasonable prospect of conviction existed. Mr. Navarrete was able to convince the Crown and all charges against the client were withdrawn.
R. v. S.W. (2017)
The client was discharged after a preliminary inquiry of charges of armed robbery, numerous firearm charges and possession of drugs for the purpose of trafficking. The client retained defence lawyer Christopher Assie. The client was co-accused with 6 other accused of having participated in a brazen armed robbery of a convenience store. Several of the other co-accused were charged with having committed other armed robberies. After getting the client bail, the client was free to continue to go to school and work while awaiting his preliminary inquiry. The client was discharged at the preliminary inquiry and did not have to face a trial in the Superior Court.
Regina v. C.V. (2017)
Client discharged of first degree, second degree murder and manslaughter after a one month preliminary hearing. C.V. was charged with numerous offences along with three other individuals regarding a robbery and shooting at a restaurant in Toronto. C.L. was not the shooter but was alleged to have been sufficiently connected to the shooting of the victim to be tried on first or second degree murder. Defence lawyers Joseph Neuberger and Mariya Protsenko defended C.L. and were able to establish that there was insufficient evidence to establish that C.L. had knowledge that any shooting would occur and that he did not play a substantial role in the death of the victim. As such C.L. was committed to trial only upon armed robbery and related offences but not the murder allegations.
Regina v. J. S. (Y.O.) (2015)
Client charged with robbery after being alleged to have participated in a robbing of a pedestrian with another co-accused. Mr. Navarrete held various discussion with the assigned Crown Attorney in Brampton and provided various pertinent materials for the Crown’s consideration. Client ultimately resolved his matter to a minor charge and was given a conditional discharge. Client also had an outstanding breach charge for communication in relation to a co-accused in another jurisdiction. Mr. Navarrete was also successful in having those charges withdrawn as client entered into a section 810 peace bond for that charge.
R. v. M. H. (2015)
Client along with another co-accused were charged with robbery after allegedly robbing of a person’s cell phone. Defence lawyer John Navarrete met with the assigned Crown Attorney in Brampton and provided various important materials for the Crown’s consideration regarding his client. Mr. Navarrete also raised issues of knowledge and difficulties with identification evidence. Client’s charges withdrawn after participating in diversion.
Regina v. J.A. (2014)
Client had attended a party at a townhouse when police executed a search warrant on the residence and discovered three firearms in a closet where the client and a few other individuals were located. Client, along with other individuals, was arrested for possession of firearms (X3) and held for bail. Mr. Navarrete successfully obtained the client’s release. When the matter was set for trial in the Superior Court of Justice at 361 University Avenue, Mr. Navarrete, on behalf of his client, had extensive conversations with the Crown Attorney and provided various cases to show that the Crown’s case with respect to the client’s knowledge and possession of any of the firearms was weak. The Crown then embarked on a full review of the case prior to trial and determined that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction for any of the accuseds and all the charges were subsequently withdrawn.
Regina v. S.S. (2014)
Charges of Robbery x 4, Possession of Stolen Property, Utter Death threats, Mischief Under $5,000.00, Assault Causing Bodily Harm, and Use Imitation Firearm, withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice prior to setting a date for trial. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger carefully scrutinized all the statements and evidence and drafted a chart in relation to the evidence and highlighted all the inconsistencies. Defence counsel Joseph Neuberger disclosed to the Crown assigned to the file the chart and explained in detail all of the deficits of the prosecution’s case. Joseph Neuberger was able to establish a complete lack of credible reliable evidence and as a result the prosecutor agreed with defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction on any of the charges. As a result, all charges were withdrawn.
Regina v. A.S. (2014)
Client discharged after a three week preliminary hearing on a charge of second degree murder. The client was alleged to have stabbed and killed a patron of his restaurant in July of 2012 during a large fight in the parking lot. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger decided to run the preliminary hearing like a trial with detailed and vigorous cross-examination of all key Crown witnesses. After cross-examinations, material inconsistencies were obvious and as well witness collusion and wrongful identification. In addition, Joseph Neuberger established that at least one crown witness may have fabricated her evidence. As a result, the Crown Attorneys agreed that there was insufficient evidence to commit the client to trial and there were likely other viable suspects. Accordingly, the charge of second degree murder was discharged.
Regina v. S.M. (2013)
Client acquitted of manslaughter after six days of deliberation in the death of a Don jail inmate. The client was originally charged with second degree murder, but Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger was able to have the client discharged at the preliminary hearing of second degree murder and committed to trial only on one count of manslaughter. Joseph Neuberger represented S.M. at trial and extensively cross-examined the two main Crown witnesses with the focus on disproving identity as a perpetrator and if any role was played by S.M. in the homicide, the role was so minor in nature as to not be a significant cause of the death of the inmate. After approximately two month trial, S.M. was found not guilty.
Regina v. F.S. (2012)
Charges of Conspiracy to Commit Robbery and Robbery stayed after a four day preliminary hearing in the Ontario Court of Justice. F.S. was alleged to have been the mastermind and “get away driver” of the robbery of $300,000 in money and bonds. The actual take on the alleged robbery was far less. There was cell phone records and cell tower evidence allegedly putting the client in touch with the two other co-accused parties and in the vicinity of the robbery. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger aggressively attacked the cell phone and cell tower evidence as well as aggressively cross-examined the main crown witness establishing that F.S. was not involved. Further, upon an application for the Crown to cross-examine their own witness, to rebut an issue of a forced statement by police, Joseph Neuberger established in cross-examining the police officer who took the statement, that there was a seven minute gap between the actual commencement of the statement and the time the witness was brought into the interview room that was not accounted for. Thus, the gap undermined the crown’s assertion that the statement was voluntary. For all of these reasons, the Crown stayed the charges.
Regina v. S.M. (2012)
Client charged with second degree murder along with five other persons in an alleged beating death of an inmate in jail. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger argued at the preliminary hearing that there was insufficient evidence to find intent to kill or recklessness as to death occurring. The preliminary hearing judge committed S.M. on manslaughter, and not murder. The case is now proceeding to trial.
Regina v. Rinella (2011)
Charges of Conspiracy to Commit Murder and Counselling to Commit Murder, stayed in the Superior Court of Justice, Toronto, after two trials that resulted in mistrials. The client, an alleged Dominatrix, was charged in 2004 with conspiring with her client to kill his wife. The main Crown witness was the former husband of Rinella, who was alleged to have been the hired hitman. Prior to the murder, a party working with the hitman was arrested and gave information about the alleged plot. All parties were subsequently arrested. The alleged hitman cooperated with the police and became the primary witness against Rinella and her co-accused at trial. Evidence collected from the hitman included taped meetings between the hitman, Rinella and her client. These tapes were not a complete record of all discussions of the accused persons, but were alleged by the Crown to be sufficient to establish a clear plan to commit the murder.
Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger, at the most recent trial, cross-examined the hitman on the basis that the tapes were incomplete and that there were other taped meetings that would show that the alleged murder plot was in fact a drug fuelled role playing fantasy, and not a genuine plan to kill anyone. Joseph Neuberger demonstrated in cross-examination that there was plenty of evidence to establish role and fantasy play involving all parties, as well as excessive drug use, showing that this was just fantasy. In addition numerous inconsistencies in his evidence were highlighted during cross-examination ny Joseph Neuberger. A second crucial Crown witness at trial admitted that there was at least one other tape of a meeting that was not disclosed by the hitman. The trial ended in a mistrial just before completion of the evidence.
Since the end of the most recent trial, evidence sought by the defence regarding a related investigation into the suspicious death of a person who attempted to extort money from Rinella’s co-accused, demonstrated a flawed investigation that in the end may have implicated the hitman. This evidence would have had a significant impact on the credibility of the Crown’s main witness and damaged the integrity of the Crown’s case.
Just before the commencement of the third trial, on December 5, 2011, the Crown stayed all charges against Rinella and the co-accused.
See media coverage:
Charges stayed against media magnate, dominatrix in alleged murder conspiracy
Regina v. K.M. (2011)
Charges of Mischief to Property over $5,000.00 x 3, Weapons Dangerous, and Carry Concealed Weapon withdrawn at trial in the Ontario Court of Justice. The client was arrested based on being identified as a black male matching the description of a suspect who was breaking into vehicles in a nearby parking lot. When searched a knife was seized by the police from K.M. The police gave K.M. his rights to counsel but then drove K.M. to a location where K.M. said he had just come from and then to the scene of the break and enters. Some 32 minutes later the police took K.M. to the police station where K.M. never had the opportunity to speak with counsel. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger brought a Charter application alleging violations of sections 7, 8, 9, 10(a) and (b) and sought a stay of the charges. Joseph Neuberger argued that the police did not inform K.M. of the true nature of his detention and failed to act promptly to ensure the client had the opportunity to obtain much needed legal advice. As a result of this compelling argument, the Crown withdrew all charges.
R. s. S.(A) – 2010
After Neuberger & Partners represented client at contested Bail Review in Superior Court in Parry Sound, client is released to bail on charges of Possession of Loaded Handgun.
Seth v. Her Majesty the Queen (2001)
Conviction for manslaughter overturned due to unreasonable verdict.
Regina v. Rinella (2010)
Client charged with Conspiracy to Commit murder released on bail and subsequently charged with fail to comply recognizance was acquitted pursuant to lawyer Stacey Nichols successfully arguing that requisite means not present to substantiate charge.
Regina v. J.B. (2009)
Neuberger & Partners obtained Bail in Superior Court for client facing Second Degree Murder Charge.
Regina v. A.W. (2008)
Client discharged after complex, 5 month preliminary hearing on charge of first degree murder. Lengthy and detailed cross-examination by Stacey Nichols of several Crown witnesses and comprehensive closing arguments resulted in Preliminary Hearing Judge finding that there was no evidence capable of supporting committal of client to trial on charge.
Past results do not guarantee success in any particular case.