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
Client acquitted of Refuse to Provide Breath Sample after defence counsel Stacey Nichols effectively cross-examined police officers and presented expert medical evidence relating to the Accused’s inability to provide the sample due to anxiety issues.
Client is acquitted of Drive Over 80 charge after a trial in London Ontario in which Neuberger & Partners successfully argued that the client’s rights to counsel were breached because the client reasonably believed that the police overheard his conversation with duty counsel.
Charge of Over 80 withdrawn prior to trial in the Ontario Court of Justice. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger advanced a Constitutional challenge to the “evidence to the contrary” provision of the Criminal Code, recently amended by Bill C-2, in July of 2008. A detailed Affidavit was developed by the defence along with a detailed disclosure motion. As a result of the defence challenge to the new law and the low readings, the charge was withdrawn in favour of a plea to careless driving under s. 130 of the Highway Traffic Act.
Neuberger & Partners obtained a ruling from Justice Caldwell at Old City Hall after he argued a disclosure motion during the course of an Impaired/Over 80 trial. The Crown was ordered to disclose Drug Recognition Expert and Standard Field Sobriety Testing training manuals for the arresting officer.
Read the decision.
Neuberger & Partners obtained a ruling from Justice Brown at Old City Hall after he argued a disclosure motion during an impaired/over 80 trial. Crown ordered to disclose the Drug Recognition and Standard Field Sobriety Testing manuals of an investigating officer.
Neuberger & Partners obtained an acquittal for client on charges of Impaired Driving/Over 80 after a 2 day trial in Parry Sound. Trial judge held that the Parry Sound O.P.P. breached the client’s rights under s. 10(b) of the Charter because the client did not adequately understand English.
Charges of Impaired Driving and Over 80 withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice. The client’s vehicle was found at the side of the road in a ditch with deep snow. The client was arrested for care and control and eventually gave readings more than twice the legal limit. The client had advised police that he was not the driver, but was charged as having care and control and no one else being around as the alleged driver. What defence counsel Joseph Neuberger discovered by careful review of the disclosure and from his client was that the police had taken 22 minutes to transport the client to the police station. The station ought to have been only a few minute drive. The police had in fact gone for dinner while leaving the client locked in the back of the police cruiser. A detailed Charter Application was filed alleging violations of the client’s section 7, 9 and 10(b) rights along with an Affidavit from the client and a map showing the distances. As a result, the Crown agreed with the defence that this was an impermissible violation of the client’s rights and as a result all charges were withdrawn.
Charges of impaired driving and Over 80 withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice, after extensive review of the evidence and potential challenge by defence counsel, Joseph Neuberger, to the recent amendments altering the “evidence to the contrary” defence.
Charges of “Over 80” dismissed pursuant to defence counsel Stacey Nichols cross-examining the officer with regard to discrepancies surrounding the timing of the samples.
Client found not guilty after trial in the Ontario Court of Justice based upon a “bolus” drinking defence. The accused testified that he consumed whiskey 20 to 30 minutes prior to being stopped by police. The readings that were 161 mg and 153 mg were consistent with his pattern of drinking, but as explained through expert evidence, at the time the client was stopped by police, the alcohol he consumed would have only been 50% absorbed and he would have been under the legal limit at the time of driving. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger argued that this amount to “evidence to the contrary” and that the client ought to be acquitted. The evidence of all three defence witnesses were accepted and the client was 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.
