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Charges of Domestic Assault and Mischief withdrawn after extensive discussions with the Crown. J.C. was charged by his soon to be former wife with domestic violence allegations arising from an argument over separation. Joseph Neuberger was retained as his criminal defence lawyer. Once disclosure was received and thoroughly reviewed, it became apparent that the purported assault would have resulted in severe injuries yet, there were no injuries. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger met on three occasions with the assigned Crown and negotiated a withdrawal if the client completed a program of anger management and conflict management therapy. After successful completion, both charges were withdrawn.
Charges of Assault and Mischief withdrawn prior to trial. G.L. was alleged to have been highly intoxicated at a bar and was involved in a fight that resulted in some injury to the complainant and damage to the bar. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger was retained. Joseph Neuberger sought the video surveillance from inside the bar, and even though the surveillance video was not the best quality, it appeared that G.L. was attacked first due to some verbal argument. Joseph Neuberger had the client attend for alcohol abuse therapy and tendered the report and the surveillance video to the Crown. After a fruitful pre-trial, the Crown agreed to withdraw the charges.
Client found not guilty after two day trial in Newmarket, Ontario Court of Justice, of charges of Luring x 4, and Communicating to obtain the sexual services of a minor x 2, all arising from the police project Raphael. H.B. was 52 years of age at the time and had looked at the backpages for an escort. He eventually made arrangements to meet two service providers at a hotel and was arrested as it was alleged that he was communicating with an undercover officer pretending to be a 14 year old escort. Joseph Neuberger was retained as the criminal defence lawyer. When Joseph Neuberger took over the file, an extensive meeting with the client yielded information about issues with the client’s phone and he having contacted other service providers. The police provided in disclosure only the texts messages between the undercover and Mr. H.R. The cell phone extraction report from the police similarly only had messages between H.R. and the undercover officer. Joseph Neuberger sought an Order releasing the seized phone to the defence to have it forensically reviewed by the defence expert. The defence expert provided an extraction report that included all other calls and messages between H.R. and other service providers and demonstrated that some messages were truncated and not clear. The defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger provided the Crown with the defence expert material and also prepared a Compilation Report that included all communications over a two hour period to provide full context to the communications with the undercover officer. The evidence established that H.R. was confused between two numbers both having area codes of 289 one of which was the undercover officer. There were numerous messages and it was not a simple back and forth between the officer and H.R. but rather extended well over one hour and 34 minutes. Further, defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger spent over 70 hours with H.R. preparing him to testify. At trial, the defence extraction report, and the Compilation Report provided strong evidence to support H.R.’s evidence. The court found that H.R.’s evidence, although having its credibility issues, was not unbelievable and thus raised a reasonable doubt that he knew the alleged age of the pretend escort. Accordingly, the client was found not guilty of all six charges.
M.T. was originally charged with attempt murder in relation to astabbing incident at a local sports bar and detained in custody. M.T.’s family immediately retained Mr. John Navarrete. Mr. Navarrete spoke to the Crown about the defence position of self-defence regarding the incident in order to obtain bail. Shortly after Crown received the video surveillance of the sports bar which confirmed the triable issue of self defence and thereby consented to client’s release and reduced the charge from attempt murder to aggravated assault, utter threat and carry concealed weapon. Mr. Navarrete later conducted a narrow and focused preliminary hearing cross
examining the alleged victim of the stabbing. Ultimately, the matter went to trial by judge and jury in the Superior Court of Justice located at 361 University Ave. After a two-week trial where the Crown called over 7 witnesses and Mr. Navarrete called M.T. to describe his self-defensive actions, the client was acquitted of aggravated assault and carry a concealed weapon by the jury and only convicted for uttering a threat. The
client received a conditional discharge as his sentence for that charge.
R.C. was charged with assault (X4), forcible confinement, sexual assault and breach of probation against his “on and off” again girlfriend. It was alleged that R.C. bound up his girlfriend and held her against her will for over 5 hours, sexually assaulted her and physically hit her. R.C. initially retained Christopher Assie to represent him on this charge and various other related charges involving the same complainant. Mr. Assie conducted a thorough and clinical preliminary inquiry involving cross examining the complainant on various text messages and Facebook postings. R.C.’s matter then was elevated to the Superior Court of Justice at 361 University Ave
where a one-week trial took place before a judge alone with Mr. John Navarrete as his counsel. Mr. Assie and Mr. Navarrete worked collaboratively to ensure that key points of the preliminary inquiry were raised at trial for the benefit of the client. Mr. Navarrete cross examined the complainant on the various postings and text messages and various other issues and met with the client in custody at the Toronto South Detention Centre on several occasions to ensure that he was properly prepared to testify at his own trial. The jury found R.C. not guilty on all charges.
Client found not guilty of sexual assault after two day trial in the Ontario Court of Justice. N.O. had met the complainant on Ashley Madison and started an intimate relationship. On one night the complainant alleged an act occurred during their sexual encounter where she withdrew consent but all other contact was consensual. N.O. hired Joseph Neuberger as his defence lawyer. Joseph Neuberger obtained from the client over 300 messages before and after the alleged sexual assault that provided an extremely rich foundation for cross-examination of the complainant including her intention to meet up with N.O. that night to get drunk and high and forget the evening which went directly to her reliability as a witness. Other messages showed animus after the alleged event due to her financial situation and a friend who also attended the evening and trashed her car. At trial Joseph Neuberger extensively cross-examined the complainant and established key inconsistencies and issues related to her reliability. Joseph Neuberger and his team spent considerable time preparing N.O. for his testimony. At the end of the trial N.O.’a evidence was sufficient to raise more than a reasonable doubt on the main issue and as such N.O. was acquitted of the charge.
Charge of assault withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice Newmarket, after extensive discussions with the Crown. F.L. was involved in an altercation during his son’s soccer game where a major physical dispute broke out. Joseph Neuberger was retained as the defence lawyer. After obtaining disclosure, it was astonishing that the only statements taken were from the team of the complainant and the family of the complainant’s. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger conducted a defence investigation gathering other statements and eventually disclosed the statements to the Crown. The Crown determined that there was not reasonable prospect of conviction. As such the charge was withdrawn.
Charge of domestic assault withdrawn prior to trial date. H.D. was in the midst of a highly contentious separation and in order to remove him from the matrimonial home, the complainant made a allegation of domestic assault. Joseph Neuberger was retained as the defence lawyer. After reviewing the statement of the complainant, Joseph Neuberger drafted a memo on the massive inconsistencies and implausibility of the allegations and disclosed the memo to the Crown. After discussions with the Crown, the charge was withdrawn and the client entered into a common law peace bond.
Charges of Sexual Assault, Sexual Interference and Sexual Exploitation withdrawn at trial after two days of cross examination by Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger of the complainant. A.K. was alleged over several years to have sexually abused young lady who came to his house for many years and was friends with A.K.’s children. Joseph Neuberger, Grace Condello and Mariya Protsenko, were retained as the defence team. Detailed interviews were done with all family members and then detailed preparation of them for testimony. Joseph Neuberger meticulously dissected the statement of the complainant in constructing his cross-examination of the complainant. At trial Joseph Neuberger exposed the implausibility of many of the allegations, the vagueness of the allegations and drew out numerous inconsistencies in addition to establishing that by day two of the cross the complainant had been coached on how to answer questions. After the cross examination, the Crown took the position that the evidence of the complainant no longer was capable of supporting a reasonable prospect of conviction and as such all charges were withdrawn.
Client acquitted after three day trial in the Ontario Court of Justice, Newmarket of Domestic Assault. F.Z. had an argument with the complainant regarding his belief that she was unfaithful to him. The complainant alleged that F.Z. had pushed her down onto a bed and choked her for at least 10 minutes. During the altercation, F.Z. sustained a serious tear to his groin area requiring 12 stitches. F.Z. called police but was charged. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger was retained. Joseph Neuberger, Paralegal Grace Condello and senior clerk Daisy Zhang conducted extensive client interviews and obtained the client’s medical records related to the injuries he sustained including a bite mark to his finger, and pictures of the injuries. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger referred the client to a family lawyer as the complainant had applied for divorce and immediately sought sole custody of their two children. Detailed review of the evidence of the complainant was conducted, including the photographs of her injuries. The injuries showed only a scratch to on side of her neck, abrasions to her right clavical and a swollen right eye. Extensive time was spent with the client preparing him for trial. In addition, Joseph Neuberger obtained from the family lawyer the Family Court pleadings. At trial Joseph Neuberger cross-examined the complainant on her motivation to seek sole custody and that obtaining a conviction in the criminal case would help her with obtaining sole custody, thus illuminating a motive to fabricate. Further, detailed cross-examination of the alleged sequence of the alleged assault was reviewed and the complainant could not or would not explain her injuries as they did not correlate with the manner in which she described the assault. Under cross-examination there were other crucial admissions from the complainant that undermined her reliability. F.Z. testified and described that in fact he was attacked and defended himself. The manner of the attack and his defence described matched the injuries of both parties. After extensive submissions, the defence succeeded 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.
