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Charges of Assault and Threaten Death (domestic) withdrawn prior to trial in the Ontario Court of Justice. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger was able to demonstrate to the Crown a number of serious inconsistencies in the statement of the complainant in comparison to other statements obtained through the defence investigation. Given the nature of the inconsistencies, and the defence statements, it was negotiated that R.L. sign a peace bond and the charges were accordingly withdrawn.
Charges of Assault x 2, Threaten Death x 2, and Criminal Harassment withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice prior to trial. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger obtained email and text communications from the complainant (ex-wife) to the client, N.B., pre-dating and during the time frame of the alleged offences. The content of the communications undermined a significant portion of the evidence of the complainant as to the nature of the relationship. In addition, defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger was able to establish to the Crown significant inconsistencies in the evidence. As a result the Crown agreed that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction and the charges were withdrawn.
Client acquitted of Prowl by Night and Criminal Harassment x 2 (domestic related) after three day trial in the Ontario Court of Justice. C.K. was alleged to have went on the property of his ex-wife and stalked her. The complainant also alleged a history of emotional and physical abuse. The history was relied upon by the Crown to establish the reasonable fear of the complainant. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger carefully investigated all historical allegations, in particular an allegation made by the complainant in the family court proceedings. Joseph Neuberger obtained all police occurrence reports and police notes, including evidence of two prior charges of the complainant in which the complainant resolved the charges by entering into peace bonds. At trial, defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger extensively cross-examined the complainant on her evidence and on contradictory evidence obtained by Neuberger during the defence investigation. The defence also called evidence of two police officers to contradict the complainant. The judgment of the court found that the complainant was not a credible witness and in fact had lied in her family court affidavit. The Court went on to further find that there was no credible evidence to support the complainant’s evidence of C.K. ever having been violent. Accordingly, the client was found not guilty of all counts.
Charge of domestic assault withdrawn prior to setting trial date. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger was able to persuade the Crown that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction. The client entered into a peace bond and as such the charge was withdrawn.
Client found not guilty of charges of Assault, Criminal Harassment x 2, Harassing phone calls, and Threaten Death x 2 after four day trial in the Ontario Court of Justice. Client was charged with a number of offences arising from the ending of his relationship with his spouse. The allegations included records of hundreds of phone calls and emails from S.S. that were allegedly directed at harassing the complainant. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger sought and obtained recovery of additional email and text communications between the complainant and the client, S.S. In total there were well over 500 emails and text messages. Joseph Neuberger created three briefs of emails and text messages for cross-examination aimed at undermining the complainant’s evidence that the abuse was for the entirety of the relationship and continued while the couple was ending their relationship. In addition, one email recovered showed that there was in fact an assault perpetrated by the complainant on the client at or near the time of the alleged charge of assault that S.S. was charged with. Detailed and lengthy cross-examination of the complainant over two trial days established that in fact the complainant had only provided the police emails that were favourable to her version of events. In fact the complainant did not disclose contradictory emails. In addition, Joseph Neuberger was able to establish that the couple argued via email and text message about almost every conceivable issue in their relationship without the complainant ever mentioning anything about any abuse. Many of the emails put to the complainant in cross-examination established that complainant held S.S. in high regard and was very thankful for his patience with her issues. As a result of the cross-examination, S.S. was found not guilty of all charges.
Client found not guilty of two counts of assault and two counts of sexual assault (Domestic related charges) after a 7 day jury trial in the Superior Court in Toronto. Client was alleged to have brutally assaulted and sexually assaulted his common law spouse over a period of three years. The prosecution called the complainant, the complainant’s mother in relation to timely disclosure to rebut allegations of recent fabrication and a counsellor who had seen S.N. during the relationship wherein S.N. had admitted to “hitting” the complainant. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger carefully analyzed all of the pleadings and affidavits in the family court proceeding. The complainant had made an allegation in the family court proceeding of a specific instance of child abuse that was reported to the police. Joseph Neuberger obtained all of the police records including the police notes through a Freedom of Information Act application. The records specifically refuted the allegation of child abuse. In addition, certain evidence of the complainant was in contradiction to other evidence gathered through the defence investigation. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger carefully constructed a detailed cross-examination of the two main prosecution witnesses, and through cross-examination was able to establish three instances of fabrication of allegations, and establish collusion between the two prosecution witnesses. Joseph Neuberger alleged in the defence that the complainant had fabricated the allegations in order to obtain sole custody of the one child of the marriage. Joseph Neuberger delivered a detailed two hour closing to the jury and after three hours of deliberations, the jury returned a verdict of not guilty on all counts. J.N. v. Durham Regional Police 2011
Durham Regional Police ordered to expunge record of a withdrawn domestic assault charge from their Criminal Information Request database. Neuberger & Partners appear before Ontario Superior Court on behalf of the Intervener Canadian Civil Liberties Association.
Charges of assault and Threaten Death (Domestic) withdrawn on the day of trial in the Ontario Court of Justice. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger obtained copies of bank records and text messages supporting the defence theory that the allegations were motivated by the complainant’s desire to empty the bank accounts and obtain more money from C.J.B. As such, the charges were withdrawn.
Charge of sexual assault withdrawn prior to trial in the Ontario Court of Justice. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger, after careful analysis of the evidence, and during lengthy negotiations with the Crown’s office, was able to establish that the facts as disclosed by the complainant, did not necessarily demonstrate an intention to commit a sexual assault but rather were misconstrued by the complainant as to the client’s intended actions. Accordingly, the Crown agreed that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction and the charge was withdrawn.
Charges of sexual assault, indecent act, and criminal harassment x 2, withdrawn during trial in the Ontario Court of Justice. After extensive review of the prosecution evidence including surveillance recordings from the locations where the acts were alleged to have occurred (TTC stations) by defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger, and detailed cross-examination of the complainant giving rise to serious inconsistencies between the evidence and the surveillance recordings, the Crown agreed with the defence that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction. Accordingly, all charges were withdrawn on day three of the trial.
Client acquitted of sexual assault after two week jury trial in the Superior Court of Justice, Toronto. T.B., a professional, had met the complainant in 2005 and began and productive business relationship with her. On the night of the alleged sexual assault, the complainant along with two other business associates attended T.B.’s home for a dinner. During the evening all parties drank wine. The complainant and her professed boyfriend (one of the business associates) slept at T.B.’s residence due to being intoxicated. The complainant was woken the next morning by her boyfriend and found to be naked. The complainant alleged that T.B. had sexually assaulted her during the night when she was unconscious. The police took a statement from the complainant and her boyfriend, and then arrested T.B.. Sexual assault kit examination revealed DNA including semen that was found to be consistent with T.B.’s DNA profile. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger had a private investigator take a statement from the remaining person who attended the dinner but was not interviewed by police. At trial, Joseph Neuberger extensively cross-examined the complainant, the complainant’s boyfriend, crown experts including a toxicologist and nurse, in accordance with the defence theory that the complainant had consented to sexual contact. In addition, the defence raised a reasonable doubt that the complainant suffered a “blackout” as opposed to being unconscious. The defence was able to establish significant inconsistencies in the Crown’s case, as well as establish the collusion of the complainant and her boyfriend in the content of their evidence. In closing argument to the jury, Joseph Neuberger raised significant issues regarding the lack of important evidence including failure by the police to search T.B.’s residence and the Crown’s failure to tendered important forensic evidence. After 28 minutes of deliberation, the jury returned a verdict of not guilty.
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.
