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
Charge of Domestic Assault withdrawn prior to setting trial date. The complainant alleged that S.T. had struck her while at Canada’s Wonderland. The client was arrested by security. Defence Lawyer Joseph Neuberger obtained a statement of another witness that showed the complainant and first grabbed the crotch area of S.T. resulting in him striking her to get her to stop the assault. As a result of the independent witness statement the charge was withdrawn.
Charges of Sexual Assault and Extortion discharged after completion of the Preliminary Hearing. The client was alleged to have sexually assaulted a subordinate volunteer at a religious centre over the course of several years. The historical sexual assault allegations included a wide ranging array of sexual acts, as well as threats and coercion. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger extensively and aggressively cross-examined the complainant at the preliminary hearing. Numerous text messages and chats were put to the complainant in an attempt to establish that the complainant did not view A.R. as a person in authority and more importantly actively pursued him over the years for a relationship. The complainant admitted contacting A.R. “all the time” and expressing her love for him and wanting to be with him. She even attended his home and maintained a friendship with his wife and insisted on babysitting A.R.’s daughter. After cross-examination, the Crown Attorney reviewed the evidence and decided that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction. As a result, the charges were discharged (meaning no evidence to commit to trial on).
Client charged with domestic assault in relation to his wife. After a trial in the Ontario Court of Justice in Brampton, client was acquitted. Lawyer John Navarrete cross examined the complainant and after the evidence was closed, the Judge stated, “he could not believe one word” from the complainant. Mr. Navarrete in a careful cross examination demonstrated the complainant’s lack of credibility, reliability and believability. The accused had also been charged for Fail to Comply with a his terms of bail and his trial scheduled shortly after the assault trial, but the Crown decided to withdraw that charge because she no longer believed the complainant either.
Client found not guilty of Sexual Assault, Assault, and Forcible Confinement, after a two day trial in the Ontario Court of Justice, Pembroke, Ontario. J.Y. had arranged a date with a young lady through a social chat site. After the couple had relations, an argument ensued and the police were called. J.Y. was charged. At trial, defence counsel Joseph Neuberger, directly challenged the complainant’s credibility and reliability on many aspects of her story. It was established through cross-examination that there was no assault and no forcible confinement. Further, the complainant’s version of how the evening unfolded was not believable given the objective evidence and text messages. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger was able to establish that her version of events was unrealistic in relation to some admissions made by the complainant and the text messages. As a result J.Y. was acquitted of all charges.
Charges of Assault x 2 (Domestic) withdrawn prior to setting trial date. S.Z. was accused of assaulting his ex-wife on two separate occasions. The client had taken pictures of injuries he sustained during the course of the altercations. Just after the charges were laid, the complainant moved in Family Court for an order for exclusive possession of the home and sole custody of the children. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger was able to establish through numerous prior emails from the complainant a pattern of threatening conduct wherein if S.Z. did not make a settlement with the complainant she was make false allegations against him. After detained discussions with the Crown and a lengthy judicial pre-trial, Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger was able to convince the Crown that the complainant had serious credibility issues. In addition it was S.Z. who suffered injury and not the complainant. As a result both charges were withdrawn.
Client found not guilty of three counts of assault after a three day trial in the Ontario Court of Justice, Guelph. J.S. was charged with having assaulted three bouncers by punching them and spitting blood at them while at a nightclub. Five security personnel from the bar and three police officers testified for the prosecution. Interestingly there were no witnesses from the bar other than police and security. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger cross-examined the officer in charge and all witnesses on the deficient investigation in relation to not taking statements from any “independent” witnesses and the lack of any surveillance footage of the alleged assaults. The bar had a digital security surveillance system yet there was NO video. Further, there were no photos of any alleged injuries. J.S. had sustained serious injury and Defence counsel Joseph Neuberger cross-examined each prosecution witness on the photographs of J.S.’s injuries and asked which were responsible for the injuries. Not one prosecution witness would admit any punch or kick to J.S. during the alleged struggle. After extensive cross-examination, Joseph Neuberger, was able to establish numerous inconsistencies and the simple fact that certain prosecution witnesses were not being forthright in their evidence. As a result, the client was acquitted of all charges.
Client found not guilty of sexual assault after a four day trial in the Ontario Court of Justice. The client was a front desk supervisor at a hotel in Toronto. A number of guests in a room were causing a disturbance. It was alleged that H.C. attended the room having known the occupants. While in the room, H.C. was alleged to have stayed in a separate room with a female guest and raped her. At trial, defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger extensively cross-examined all crown witnesses and was able to establish serious inconsistencies in the evidence, evidence of collusion and tainted memory and clear implausibility of a number of aspects of the evidence of the complainant and one of the main supporting witnesses. As a result, Joseph Neuberger, defence counsel, was able to raise serious doubt about the truth of the complainant’s evidence and H.C. was found not guilty of sexual assault.
Client found not guilty of sexual assault after two day trial in the Ontario Court of Justice, Toronto. The client, a taxi driver, was accused of sexually assaulting a customer who was seated in the front passenger seat of his car. At trial defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger cross-examined the complainant on a number of issues, including her level of intoxication. The interior of the taxi cab has an in-car camera. The entire ride was digitally recorded. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger cross-examined the complainant and established that at the time the complainant made her allegation she was not aware of the presence of an in-car camera and therefore she did not know that the ride was captured digitally. Further, defence counsel Joseph Neuberger, established significant inconsistencies between the complainant’s in-court testimony and her recorded interview with police. There was a motive to fabricate as the complainant was drunk at the time of the alleged incident and got angry at W.Q. because he was not able to take the complainant to her home address. The complainant did not want to pay for the taxi ride. W.A. was well prepared to give evidence at the trial. In its judgment, the Court found the complainant’s evidence unreliable. Further, the Court accepted the evidence of W.A. Accordingly, W.A. was acquitted of the charge of sexual assault.
Client found not guilty of Sexual Assault x 3 and Domestic Assault after a three day trial in the Ontario Court of Justice, Newmarket. D.C. was charged during the initial stages of a separation by his wife. His wife alleged that sometime in the fall of 2012 D.C. started to sexually assault her in order to convince her to move ahead with divorce proceedings. In January 7, 2013 D.C. was alleged to have not only sexually assaulted his wife but also forced her down on a bed and caused injury to her wrist. On January 7, 2013, the complainant left the house after the alleged assaults and went directly to her family law lawyer. On January 10, 2013 the complainant went to police and D.C. was charged with the four criminal offences. Joseph Neuberger, defence lawyer, cross-examined the complainant on her family court filings including the initial application seeking sole custody of the children and the exclusive possession of the house. The Application, of course, included the charges but also allegations of ongoing abuse in the marriage. D.C. was not able to gain access to his children for several weeks after released on bail. Once an interim order was put in place, D.C. only had limited access to his children and was prevented from any access to the matrimonial home. Joseph Neuberger was able to establish in cross-examination that the complainant knew the effect criminal charges would have on her success in obtaining full custody and exclusive possession of the home. Further, Joseph Neuberger was able to establish significant inconsistencies between her in-court testimony and her statement. Joseph Neuberger spent considerable time preparing D.C. for his testimony. In the court’s decision, the judge accepted the evidence of D.C. and found serious concerns with the complainant’s evidence including the implausibility of her allegations. The court relied on the cross-examination of the complainant in concluding that D.C. had to be found not guilty.
Charge of assault causing bodily harm withdrawn prior to trial. The client was alleged to have assaulted a pedestrian as a “road rage” incident. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger attended the area where the offence was alleged to have been committed with the client. A re-enactment was done with photograph and video evidence of where the witnesses were standing. It was obvious that the witnesses could not have viewed anything much less seen what they stated in their statements. In addition, an investigator retained by the defence found an employee of a store that works right at the corner who had witnesses the incident. His version of the event was contradictory to the complainant’s version. As a result, defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger turned over all defence evidence to the Crown. The Crown agreed that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction and the charge was withdrawn.
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.
