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 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.
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.
Charges of Assault x 6 (Domestic), Sexual Assault x 2 (Domestic) and Fail to comply x 2 withdraw prior the commencement of the preliminary hearing. D.S. was charged by his ex-wife with historical allegations dating back almost six years prior to the couple’s separation. The charges were laid just after D.S. won a interim custody order in family court. The client immediately had difficulty retaining custody of his children once the charges were laid. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger worked with the family law counsel to gather up all of the complainant’s affidavits and pleadings. In addition, Joseph Neuberger obtained a recording of a song that the complainant had the children sing to D.S. just after separation about how he was sick in the head. Discussions occurred between the assigned Crown and Joseph Neuberger due to concerns for the well being of the children. As a result, Joseph Neuberger provided a detailed chart of the inconsistencies in the complainant’s evidence between her statement and the various affidavits filed in Family Court, a recording of the son and Joseph Neuberger further provided the full draft cross-examination to the Crown for her review. After discussions, the Crown agreed with Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction. As a result, all charges were withdrawn.
Charges of sexual assault and sexual interference withdrawn prior to trial. The client had an ongoing relationship with a young woman who professed to be 17 years of age. Unfortunately, she lied and was under the legal age of consent. The mother of the complainant discovered the relationship and contacted police. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger researched the social media postings of the complainant including dating sites and discovered numberous profiles with the age of 17. In addition, the complainant seemed to suggest in her statement to police that she may have lied about her age to J.L. In addition, the defence disclosed the proposed evidence of J.L. to the Crown. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger established that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction and the charge was accordingly withdrawn.
Client found not guilty of charges of sexual assault, sexual interference and invitation to sexual touching after a three day trial in the Ontario Court of Justice in Newmarket. K.B. was alleged to have sexually assaulted his granddaughter. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger conducted a detailed cross-examination at trial of each crown witness to establish significant inconsistencies in the story of the complainant; evidence that showed that K.B., with in a moment of the alleged assault, was actually in another room and seemed “normal”. Finally, and most significant, Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger was able establish that the circumstances in which the alleged sexual assault was to have occurred were implausible and stretched the bounds of imagination. Joseph Neuberger also carefully prepared K.B. for giving evidence and at trial. When K.B. testified, the judge while rendering his reasons for the verdict accepted the evidence of K.B. As a result, K.B. was found not guilty of all charges.
Charge of domestic assault withdrawn prior to setting trial date. Defence counsel Joseph Neuberger had extensive meetings with the assigned crown regarding the minor nature of the allegation and in fact the implausibility of how the complainant explained how the alleged assault occurred. As a result, the Crown agreed to withdraw the charge.
Charges of sexual assault x 3, and sexual interference x 3, withdrawn at trial in the Ontario Court of Justice. The complainant alleged historical assaults while living as a tenant with her mother in the basement of S.X.U’s home. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger prepared a detailed cross-examination of the complainant along with taking statements from two crucial defence witnesses who were to testify at trial. Joseph Neuberger was able at trial to establish to the Crown major inconsistencies and implausible facts that resulted in the Crown re-assessing the case and concluding that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction. As such, all charges were 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.
