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Client charged with Assault (X2), Assault with Weapon and Uttering Threat (X2) withdrawn at trial. After successfully arguing against the Crown’s Khan Application, which sought to introduce the complainant’s videotaped statement into evidence, Defence Lawyer John Navarrete convinced the Crown that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction. Accordingly, all charges were withdrawn.
Application by complaint for a section 810 restraining order/peace bond against Mr. M.S. (former husband of the complainant) due to allegations of criminal harassment and threaten bodily harm, withdrawn prior to the hearing in the Ontario Court of Justice. The complainant sought to restrain M.S. from any contact with her and their biological daughter who M.S. was seeking access to through the family court. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger obtained the complete history of all proceedings between the parties and after careful review of the complainant’s statement, drafted a detailed response to the application outlining why the allegations and the request for a restraining order was an indirect attempt to thwart M.S.’s access to his daughter. Joseph Neuberger was able to convince the assigned crown attorney that the complainant was attempting to alienate M.S. from his daughter and there were no genuine allegations. Accordingly the application was withdrawn.
Charge of assault with a weapon (domestic) withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice prior to setting trial date. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger obtained a copy of the 911 call and the statement of the complainant prior to the first court appearance. After detailed review of the prosecution evidence, and with extensive discussions with the Crown Attorney, Joseph Neuberger was able to establish that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction and in the circumstances of the alleged assault, it was not in the public interest to prosecute. Accordingly the charge was withdrawn.
Client was facing charges of Assault Causing Bodily Harm after argument with wife. On trial date lawyer subpoenaed records from cell phone company casting doubt on complainant’s version of events. Crown withdrew charge.
Charge of assault causing bodily harm withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice prior to trial. The client was charged with a bar related fight between the complainant, M.D.R. and two other persons, which resulted in the complainant sustaining a concussion, broken shoulder and various bruising. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger carefully reviewed the statements of the witnesses and sought through the defence investigation statements of other independent witnesses who had viewed the altercation, as well as security video recordings from a nearby McDonald’s restaurant. Based upon the defence investigation, Joseph Neuberger was able to establish to the Crown that M.D.R. was only acting in self-defence of himself and his two friends as the complainant had been the aggressor. Accordingly, the charge was withdrawn.
Charges of Sexual Assault x 2, Sexual Interference x 2, Assault withdrawn after completion of three day preliminary hearing prior to setting a trial in the Superior Court of Justice. J.S. was charged with historical allegations arising from his care of a child during a four year relationship with the child’s mother. The allegations arose five years after the end of the relationship, by way of disclosure to a caregiver at a time when the child was under the care of the CAS. Defence counsel Joseph Neuberger conducted a defence investigation during which various records were obtained through the search of court records relating to the child complainant. Mr Neuberger found extensive details about the complainant, the mother and other information including psychological issues that would have a very significant impact on the child complainant’s ability to perceive, recollect and more importantly to tell the truth. Joseph Neuberger extensively cross-examined the child complainant, the mother of the complainant and other crown witnesses which yielded material inconsistencies in the evidence of the complainant. After the preliminary hearing, defence counsel Joseph Neuberger wrote a detailed letter to the crown analyzing the case and establishing that the crown had no reasonable prospect of conviction. Accordingly, all charges were withdrawn in the Superior court prior to setting the date for trial.
Charge of Assault Causing Bodily Harm withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice prior to setting a trial date. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger hired a private investigator to interview various witnesses who were alleged to have seen portions of the altercation between J.B. and the complainant. In addition, Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger was able to obtain statements from the bouncers of the bar where the altercation occurred. Mr. Neuberger conducted extensive pre-trials with the assigned crown, and provided the crown with statements taken during the defence investigation along with a detailed letter drafted by Joseph Neuberger outlining the deficiencies in the crowns case, as the defence asserted J.B. acted in self-defence. Crown counsel agreed with Mr. Neuberger and the charge was withdrawn.
Client charged with Sexual Assault. On Preliminary Hearing date lawyer convinces Crown that the case is weak and there is no reasonable prospect of conviction. Charge withdrawn.
Charge of domestic assault withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice prior to setting trial date. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger negotiated a withdrawal on the basis that the client sign a peace bond and the complainant and the client complete 12 counselling sessions.
Charges of assault causing bodily harm stayed in the Ontario Court of Justice, Brampton, after defence lawyers Joseph Neuberger were successful in arguing that the clients’ rights under section 11(b) of the Charter were violated as the case took some twelve and half months to be tried. The two clients were originally charged in October of 2009 with an alleged violent assault of a neighbour. The matter came to trial in February of 2011. However, due to the shortage of Mandarin accredited interpreters, the trial which was scheduled for two days could not be completed and new dates had to be selected in order to have an accredited interpreter available for trial. Due to the inability of the Crown to provide a trial in a reasonable time with an appropriate accredited Mandarin interpreter, defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger brought a motion to stay proceedings based upon an unreasonable delay. The judge agreed with the defence motion and accordingly the charges against the two defendants were stayed.
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.
