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 charges of domestic assault and forcible confinement after trial. R.M. was alleged to have forced his ex-girlfriend into his house, locked the doors and held her against the door while arguing with her about the demise of their relationship. During this alleged altercation, R.M. was injured and the complainant sustained no injuries. After Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger extensively cross-examined the complainant, Joseph Neuberger was able to establish that R.M., after having been struck and started to bleed, told the complainant that he was going to call police and asked the complainant to leave. It was after this that the complainant first called police and did so while remaining on R.M.”s porch, which under cross-examined was used to show that the complainant was not fearful (otherwise she would have sought refuge in her car or some other safe location) and instead contacted police in order to pre-empt her from being charged for having assaulted R.M. Other significant factors were raised during cross-examination that undermined the complainant’s version of events. R.M. was well prepared by Joseph Neuberger and testified in a straightforward and believable manner. As such, the trial judge found R.M. credible and R.M. was found not guilty of both charges.
The Appellant was convicted at trial of Assault and Assault With a Weapon as a result of an altercation during a domestic dispute when a baseball bat was thrown. In the Court of Appeal, lawyer successfully argued that the conduct proven by the Crown did not amount to an assault. The Ontario Court of Appeal accepted this argument and the Appellant’s convictions for Assault and Assault with a Weapon were overturned and an acquittal entered.
Client charged with alleged sexually assaulting his wife, withdrawn mid-way through the preliminary hearing. Defence counsel Joseph Neuberger cross-examined the complainant on important inconsistencies between her 911 call and the statements she provided to police. Mr. Neuberger was able to establish that there were financial motivations to the complainant making the allegation of sexual assault and in fact the translated statement, as the original statement was in Punjabi, was not accurate which gave rise to the inherent unreliability of her initial allegations. After extensive discussions, the Crown determined that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction.
Charges of sexual assault and domestic assault withdrawn prior to setting date for trial. The client was alleged to have sexually assaulted his girlfriend while in a hotel and when she fled grabbed her by the hair and pulled her back to the room. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger was able to have the complainant re-interviewed during which the complainant recanted the allegation and also confirmed her state of high intoxication. The defence obtained copies of her bar tab establishing that the complainant had consumed a large volume of alcohol close in time to the alleged sexual assault. Further, an independent witness who allegedly observed the grabbing of the hair, was inconsistent in his statement, and was contradicted in his timing given the re-interview of the complainant. After extensive pre-trial discussions with the Crown, the client agreed to attend an expert retained by defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger for counselling and after completion of 12 sessions, the client signed a peace bond and all charges were withdrawn
Charge of sexual assault withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice prior to setting a trial date. The client was charged with allegedly sexually assaulting a young woman who was passed out and later died from a drug overdose. The police were called the next day when the young woman’s body was found and S.R.X. was interviewed and charged based on the content of his interview. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger obtained a copy of the client’s statement prior to the first set date and was able to conduct an early pre-trial with the assigned Crown. The statement was not admissible as it was very clear that S.R.X. was struggling during the interview to properly express himself in English and thus the statement ought to have been taken in Mandarin, the client’s first language. Further, when the client obtained legal advise from duty counsel, the advise was also provided in English and the client had expressed to the police that he did not fully understand what duty counsel had explained. As such, Joseph Neuberger was able to establish that the client did not obtain proper legal advise breaching his Charter right and that in any event the statement was so poor given the problems in language thus resulting in the Crown withdrawing the charge on the first appearance in court.
Charges of Assault (Domestic) and Disobey Court Order withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice prior to setting trial date. The client had been charged previously by his former wife with assault related allegations and after being acquitted at trial was charged one year later with the new allegation of assault and disobey family court order. Joseph Neuberger, counsel for J.C.K. took the position that the complainant had fabricated the entire incident. There was no supporting evidence and Joseph Neuberger acquired an Affidavit from a former witness used by the complainant who recently confirmed in the Affidavit, under oath, that the complainant had asked her to lie in the previous case. The judgement in the previous case specifically referred to the complainant having fabricated evidence and being an unreliable witness. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger provided extensive materials to the Crown, including a copy of the transcript of Joseph Neuberger’s cross-examination of the complainant in the previous trial along with the judgment in order to establish that the complainant has absolutely no credibility. After several pre-trial meetings the Crown, the prosecution decided to withdraw the charges based on the material provided and confirmed that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction.
Charges of assault (domestic), threaten death and mischief under withdrawn prior to setting a date for trial. The evidence as disclosed by the prosecution was contradictory as one witness who allegedly observed the assault gave a completely different version of how the argument and assault started. Defence counsel Joseph Neuberger had additional statements taken to further undermine the statement of the complainant. All statements were disclosed during pre-trial discussions with the Crown. After several pre-trial meetings, the Crown agreed with the defence position and all charges were withdrawn.
Client found innocent of domestic charges of Assault Causing Bodily Harm, Threaten Death x 2, and Disobey Court Order x 2 after a four day trial in the Ontario Court of Justice. The complainant had charged T.G. on two prior occasions both of which resulted in withdrawals. The complainant alleged in February of 2011 that T.G. committed a brutal assault five days after she was removed from the home owned by T.G. by police. Defence Lawyer Joseph Neuberger brought an abuse application for a stay of proceedings alleging that the Crown ought to have withdrew the charges based on the lack of credibility of the complainant and thus an improper assessment of reasonable prospect of conviction. In addition, actions taken by the complainant and the police after the laying of the charges were quite abusive. For example, the complainant alleged that T.G. had stolen a bed that belonged to the complainant for their son. The complainant produced an invoice dated June 9, 2009. Based on the receipt police attended the client’s mother’s home and essentially threaten charges unless she would turn over the bed to the complainant. Under cross-examination, Joseph Neuberger asked the complainant to identify the date of the invoice which was June of 2009 and then to read out the price paid. The price paid clearly stated a number including HST. HST only came into effect in July of 2010. The invoice had to have been made up by the complainant and the officer who acted on the invoice clearly paid no attention to whether the invoice was authentic. Detailed cross-examination by Criminal Defence Lawyer Joseph Neuberger yielded countless inconsistencies and implausible answers that led the Judge to find T.G. innocent and to completely reject the evidence of the complainant. For details of the abuse application see below.
Click Here To Read the Abuse Application
Charges of Domestic Assault x 3 withdrawn prior to trial. I.H. was charged with having assaulted his wife and two children during the course of the marriage. At the dissolution of the marriage, the complainant left the matrimonial home and went to live in a shelter with the two children. At that time the complainant alleged the abuse. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger had the statements of the complainants transcribed and then carefully analyzed each statement. At which time Joseph Neuberger provided the Crown with a chart of inconsistencies that not only undermined the reliability of the complaints’ evidence but were quite implausible. Consequently all charges were withdrawn .
Historical charges of sexual assault x 3, sexual interference x 3, and forcible confinement withdrawn after three day preliminary inquiry in the Ontario Court of Justice. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger first took statements from other potential defence witnesses and gathered demonstrative evidence that limited the timing the allegations could have occurred. In addition, Joseph Neuberger conducted an extensive and detailed cross-examination of the complainant raising many issues of not only inconsistencies between her in court testimony and her statements to police, but robust cross-examination on issues of how implausible some of the facts were including where one of the alleged sexual assaults was alleged to have occurred including the manner. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger called evidence from the complainant’s father to also establish collusion and one other witness to establish motive for the complainant to have fabricated the allegations. As a result, all charges were withdrawn after completion of the preliminary hearing.
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.
