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Charges of Assault and Threaten Death (Domestic) withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice prior to setting a trial date. Defence counsel Joseph Neuberger had extensive discussions with the Crown regarding the evidence as described by the complainant her statement. Joseph Neuberger was able to establish that there was an ulterior motive to the allegations, namely an attempt by the complainant to thwart R.K.’s access to his child. Given other evidence presented by the defence including an assessment, the Crown agreed to withdraw both charges .
Client found not guilty of charges of Forcible Entry, Unlawful Confinement, and Assault with a Weapon, after a two week jury trial. M.W. was a police officer who was charged as a result of entering a crime scene without a warrant. M.W. was charged with another officer. After attending an emergency call wherein a male was severely beaten, M.W. gathered information that led them to a house that was the crime scene. Due to the fear for the destruction of evidence, the two officers entered the home without a warrant. A complaint was made by one occupant of the house and the two officers were charged. Defence counsel Joseph Neuberger argued at trial that there were ample grounds for M.W. to enter the home and there were genuine urgent circumstances that necessitated the entry to the home without a warrant. After a two week trial, M.W. along with his fellow officer was acquitted by the jury.
Read Article
Client found not guilty of Sexual Assault after two day trial in the Ontario Court of Justice. A.E. was alleged to have lured a young women to his house under the pretence of a job interview. The two exchanged information via Kijiji and then arranged an interview for a date in February of 2012. A.E. was alleged to have used an alias for his name. While at A.E.’s residence, the complainant alleged that she was applying for a cleaning job and she was made to clean a bathroom. During the cleaning, A.E. was alleged to have touched the complainant inappropriately and to have made sexual comments. Further, after the cleaning in the bathroom, the complainant alleged she was invited into the bedroom to continue the interview where she was sexually assaulted including forced intercourse. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger extensively cross-examined the complainant establishing additional facts that supported the defence theory that the complainant did not intend to interview for a cleaning job but in fact while in the home, the complainant acted in a sexually provocative manner and eventually proposition A.E. Joseph Neuberger established significant inconsistencies in cross-examination of the complainant and slowly gained crucial admissions from the complainant about acting sexually provocatively and after having told A.E. that she “hated cleaning” that she then told A.E. that “there were other ways for her to make money”. Joseph Neuberger established that these crucial admissions had been intentionally left out of the complainants statement to police. Based upon a thorough and highly effective cross-examination of the complainant, without the client testifying, the Court found A.E. not guilty of sexual assault.
Client was charged with Sexual Assault and Sexual Interference. Lawyer Stacey Nichols cross-examined the Complainant over a 2 day period and also presented defence evidence showing that the allegations could not have occurred as alleged by the Complainant. Client acquitted of both charges in the Ontario Court of Justice.
Charges of assault causing bodily harm dismissed after lengthy discussions with the Crown. The two clients were charged with a fight arising from a dispute at a Toronto nightclub. The evidence was contradictory but defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger obtained further evidence demonstrating the complainant as having been involved in an attack on R.M. and W.M. which supported the defence position that the complainant was the aggressor and the two clients merely acted in self-defence. Accordingly, the charges were dismissed.
Charges of Threaten Death x 2 and Mischief withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice prior to trial. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger obtained statements of independent witnesses and the video surveillance of the location where the incident was alleged to have occurred. The evidence established material inconsistencies with the two complainant’s version of events. As a result of the defence investigation, the Crown determined that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction and all charges were withdrawn.
Charges of Threaten Death x 3, Assault x 2, and Assault with a Weapon (Domestic), withdrawn after extensive pre-trial negotiations. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger was able to obtain a copy of a 42 minute taped argument between the complainant and M.G.A.. The tape disclosed that the complainant was extremely aggressive, threatening and out of control while the client was at all times controlled. Two other recorded arguments further added to the defence position that the complainant was the aggressor and made up the allegations because the client ended the 16 year marriage. Joseph Neuberger was able to convince the crown that based on the disclosed evidence there was not reasonable prospect of conviction. All charges were this withdrawn.
Charges of mischief and indecent act withdrawn after extensive pre-trial negotiations. The client was alleged to have exposed himself while leaving a subway on a path that was dark with a potential female victim that was several metres ahead of the client. The evidence presented was conflicting in whether it was possible for the potential victim to have seen anything. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger had the client undergo a forensic assessment to rule out any sexual deviations and provided the report to the Crown showing that there was no such issues and no risk to the community. After numerous meetings with the Crown and judicial pre-trials, the charges were withdrawn.
Charge of sexual assault withdrawn mid-way through the preliminary hearing. The client was alleged to have sexually assaulted a female friend after they attended a casino and went to the hotel to rest before returning to Toronto. The allegations were very serious and reported to police later that night. The complainant had a boyfriend and when she returned home an argument ensued about why she went with B.L.C. to the casino. It was during this argument that the complainant alleged that she was sexually assaulted. In the complainant’s statement, it was alleged that B.L.C. made numerous affectionate moves on the complainant, while in the casino, that were flatly rejected by the complainant, including the complainant intentionally standing away from B.L.C. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger obtained the surveillance footage from the Casino. Joseph Neuberger then charted out the alleged acts in the statement with the surveillance footage. There were numerous inconsistencies, including footage showing the complainant standing beside B.L.C. rubbing his back and stroking his neck. At the preliminary hearing, Joseph Neuberger, commenced cross-examining the complainant with the inconsistencies. Unbelievably, the police never sought the surveillance and once disclosed by the defence, it was not reviewed. After one day of the preliminary hearing, the Crown had serious concerns about the credibility of the complainant. Joseph Neuberger, and his paralegal Grace Condello, prepared a new chart outlining the in court testimony as contrasted with both the original statement and surveillance, and then provided the chart to the Crown. As a result of the obvious inconsistencies, it was apparent that the complainant may have fabricated the entire allegation. As a result the charge was withdrawn.
Client was found not guilty of Sexual Assault and Sexual Interference after trial in the Ontario Court of Justice. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger conducted a detailed pressing cross-examination of the complainant, yielding numerous material inconsistencies and eventually an admission that both allegations may have been a figment of her imagination. Further cross-examination established that she was unsure if anything happened and may have just been telling stories to get attention. The two other witnesses called by the Crown were also extensively cross-examined by Joseph Neuberger in a manner that established that the complainant both before and after the alleged sexual assaults did not show any distress and in fact appeared to like the accused and wanted to spend time with the accused. No defence was called and the client was found not guilty of both charges.
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.
