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Charges of assault and Threaten Death (Domestic) withdrawn on the day of trial in the Ontario Court of Justice.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by the complainant’s desire to empty the bank accounts and obtain more money from C.J.B. As such, the charges were withdrawn.
Charge of sexual assault withdrawn prior to trial in the Ontario Court of Justice.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 Accordingly, the Crown agreed that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction and the charge was withdrawn.
Charges of sexual assault, indecent act, and criminal harassment x 2, withdrawn during trial in the Ontario Court of Justice.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 Accordingly, all charges were withdrawn on day three of the trial.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.
Charges of Criminal Harassment x 2, Assault, Mischief to Property, and Break and Enter with Intent x 2 (Domestic), all withdrawn after extensive defence investigation, and judicial pre-trials in the Ontario Court of Justice. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger arranged for calls from the ex-wife (complainant) to be recorded by the client in order to obtain evidence of her true motivations. In addition, Joseph Neuberger subpoenaed all cell phone records for the complainant and client as well as obtained all family court documents . The defence was able to establish that the complainant was motivated to fabricate criminal allegations to obtain advantage in the family court case, including seeking large support payments and unequal division of assets. The cell phone records confirmed the complainant was contacting Q.P. after a family court proceeding wherein the complainant sought a restraining order. The complainant continued to contact the client establishing that she had no fear of Q.P. Further defence investigation of evidence from alleged witnesses undermined the complainant’s story. Accordingly, all charges were withdrawn.
Charges of Assault with Weapon x 2 (Domestic), Mischief Over $5,000.00, Utter Death Threat, and Public Mischief (allegedly making a false statement), all withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice prior to trial. The client was alleged to have assaulted and threatened her former spouse and then falsely accused the spouse of threatening. There was extensive disclosure provided including a lengthy statement of the complainant suggesting that M.M.’s motivations were based in part in an attempt to secure control of the family construction business. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger extensively reviewed and analyzed the disclosure during the comprehensive defence investigation which included obtaining source documents from various sources, including the family law proceedings, to undermine crucial facts attested to by the complainant. Joseph Neuberger was able to establish that the complainant in fact fabricated the allegation of mischief, and undermined the motive argument of the complainant. Through numerous pre-trial and judicial pre-trials, Joseph Neuberger established a history of misleading evidence proffered by the complainant as against M.M. in his own effort to remove M.M. from control of the family business. As such, all charges were withdrawn.
Client was charged with assault on another student. Mr. Navarrete was retained and conducted a Crown Pre-Trial with the Crown Attorney’s Office. Mr. Navarrete raised several key inconsistencies in the evidence of the complainant and also demonstrated that D.M. lived a very productive life as a student. Crown agreed to diversion (EJS) and charges were withdrawn after mediation was completed.
Client charged with a domestic assault on her husband. Before the first appearance at the Ontario Court of Justice in Toronto, client retained John Navarrete to assist her with the charge and to get client back home. Mr. Navarrete worked with the Crown Attorney’s Office and counsel for the complainant to establish that the complainant had no fear of accused and that the accused had no prior criminal record and had lived an exemplary life. Mr. Navarrete successfully assisted in having L.M. return to her home to live with her husband. By the first court appearance, the Crown decided that she would withdraw the charge if the client completed the PARS program. Charge was ultimately withdrawn.
Client was charged with assault, assault cause bodily harm, uttering threat and assault with a weapon for an alleged serious domestic assault that was caught partly on video. On day of trial, witness did not attend, but Crown secured an adjournment. Mr. Navarrete then filed a Notice of Application for a Stay for violation of section 11(b) on the continuing trial date. After reviewing the case, the Crown agreed that 11(b) was in issue, withdrew the charges and client then entered into a peace bond.
Client charged with assault peace officer (X2) after a night of drinking in downtown Toronto. Mr. Navarrete was retained on this matter and immediately reviewed the Crown disclosure. Mr. Navarrete wrote to the Crown and raised several concerns he had with delay, the disclosure and police evidence. Mr. Navarrete also recommended a resolution by way of a peace bond. Crown reviewed the case and agreed to Mr. Navarrete’s request. Charges were ultimately 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.
