Neuberger Rose LLP. Toronto Criminal Defence Lawyers

Regina v. J.M. (2010)
Client found not guilty of charges of sexual assault and sexual interference after a four day trial in the Ontario Court of Justice.  Extensive and detailed cross-examination of the complainant, and Crown witnesses by defence counsel Joseph Neuberger, established reliability issues with the Crown’s case.  Further, the defence investigation, including the use of a private investigator hired by defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger, produced photographs of the alleged crime scene and surrounding area, which assisted in undermining the evidence of the complainant.  Finally, the client’s evidence was accepted at trial.  Accordingly, all charges against the client was dismissed.  

Regina v. A.N. (2010)
Charges of Assault Peace Officer x 3, withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice.  Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger retained a defence medical expert to review injuries sustained by the client.  The results established that the client was assaulted in a manner not consistent with the evidence of the three police officers. Further, defence interviews of various potential defence witnesses, established that the client was either wrongly identified as a person who had assaulted the police or was attacked by police without physical provocation on the part of the client.  Joseph Neuberger retained a private investigator to take formal statements from the defence witnesses and based upon all of the defence evidence, the crown agreed that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction.  All charges were therefore withdrawn.

Regina v. A.A. (2010)
Charges of Obstruct Peace Officer, Assault Peace Officer, and Mischief withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice after extensive review of the evidence with the Crown.  Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger was able to establish a lawful purpose for the client’s involvement with police and that the police acted in a hasty manner resulting in an unnecessary confrontation that did not involve any criminal conduct on the part of the client.

Regina v. S.V. (2010)
Client found not guilty of Assault and Sexual Assault after two day trial in the Ontario Court of Justice.  Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger successfully argued that evidence of the complainant’s allegations was not admissible.  In addition, evidence obtained from a recorded call from the complainant to the client’s relative undermined her credibility.  As such, all charges were dismissed.

Regina v. R.V. (2010)
Client found not guilty of assault, utter death threats and fail to comply (domestic), after a three-day trial in the Ontario Court of Justice.  Joseph Neuberger, defence lawyer, successfully challenged the admissibility of the DVD recorded statement of the complainant and established a Charter violation of the client's statement to police.  The complainant failed to recall key aspects of the case and the Crown sought to introduce the complainant's statement in order to prove its case.  The defence was able to exclude the statement, on the basis of reliability, by proving the method of questioning by the police was deficient and not a proper translation of the complainant's evidence.  Given the lack of evidence with the exclusion of the statements, the client was acquitted of all charges.

Regina v. A.T. (2010)
Client found not guilty of Assault (Domestic) after a two-day trial in the Ontario Court of Justice.  Defence lawyer, Joseph Neuberger, cross-examined the extensively complaint on the 911 call, and the notes of officers regarding her utterances at the time of investigation, establishing motive to for the complainant to have fabricated the allegation.  There were no visible injuries, when one would expect injuries given the statement of the complainant.  Accordingly, Mr Neuberger was able to undermine the Crown's case and the client was acquitted.

Regina v. T.P. (2009)
Charges of Public Mischief, Obstruct Peace Officer, Assault x 5 (Domestic), and Mischief Over $5,000.00 withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice. The client having went to the police to complain about her boyfriend’s assaultive conduct, was eventually charged by police after the police took a three hour statement from the boyfriend. The police and Crown alleged that the client intentionally made up the original allegation of assault.  The client was charged with numerous assault offences, in addition to the public mischief and obstruct allegations.  The boyfriend (complainant) had been in regular contact with the client by email and text messages.  He continued to contact the complainant even after she was charged with the offences.  He continued to call and harass her.  Upon instruction by defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger, the client began to record the calls.  In addition, Mr. Neuberger obtained all email and text messages prior to the allegations and after.  In total there were over 300 email and text messages.  Mr. Neuberger, along with his senior law clerk, reviewed each communication, and transcribed the telephone calls.  Mr. Neuberger developed a binder of the communications, and developed a chart setting out all inconsistencies between the emails and text messages with the statement of the boyfriend/complainant.  The emails and text messages, and the recorded calls, undermined the credibility of the boyfriend’s statement.  The chart developed by Mr. Neuberger and his senior law clerk clearly established very critical and material inconsistencies.  A further chart was developed by Mr. Neuberger with “consistencies” between the email and text messages and the statement of the client/accused.  On November 26, 2009, the Crown indicated on record that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction, because of Joseph Neuberger providing a very thorough and detailed analysis of the evidence, all charges were withdrawn.    

Regina v. M.W. (2009)
Charge of criminal harassment withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice.  The client was charged by his former wife with allegedly making harassing phone calls and continuing to attend her place of employment.  All of the calls were recorded by the complainant.  Defence counsel Joseph Neuberger carefully transcribed and reviewed in detail each call.  In addition, Mr. Neuberger obtained all family court documents, including the Affidavits of the complainant.  Mr. Neuberger provided the Crown  with a detailed analysis of the calls and the statement of the complainant with reference to the Family Court proceedings and Affidavits. As a result, the defence was able to establish that the client’s calls were in response to provocative and aggressive actions taken by the complainant, and as such the Crown agreed that there was no crime committed.  Accordingly, the charge was withdrawn.  The Crown commended Mr. Neuberger for his usual thorough analysis of the case, resulting in the withdrawal.

Regina v. G.C. (2009)
Charges of Assault (Domestic) x 2, and Mischief x 3, withdrawn at trial in the Ontario Court of Justice.  Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger established material inconsistencies between various statements made by the complainant that undermined the complainant’s credibility.  The defence also established to the crown that defence witnesses were able to contradict the complainant’s evidence.  As a result, all charges were withdrawn.

Regina v. T.D. (2009)
Charges of Assault (Domestic), Threaten Death and Mischief withdrawn at trial in the Ontario Court of Justice.  Defence counsel Joseph Neuberger established that a particular Crown witness was not properly subpoenaed to court and without the witness, the Crown had no reasonable prospect of conviction.  The inconsistencies between the complainant and the main Crown witness undermined the evidence for the Crown.  As a result, all charges were withdrawn.

Regina v. J.M. (2009)
Charges of Sexual Assault x 3, Sexual Interference x 3 withdrawn at the preliminary hearing in the Ontario Court of Justice after detailed consideration of the evidence.  Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger persuaded the Crown that the evidence was weak with inherent contradictions. As a result all charges were withdrawn.

Regina v. Tahir (2009)
Client found not guilty of Threaten Death x 2, Assault (Domestic) and Weapons Dangerous after trial in the Ontario Court of Justice. The client was alleged, after having found his girlfriend with another man, to have threatened and assaulted his girlfriend and then threatened the other male.  The client was also alleged to have grabbed a knife and acted in a threatening manner with the knife.  After thorough cross-examination of the Crown witnesses by defence counsel Joseph Neuberger and credible evidence given by the client, all charges were dismissed by the trial judge.

Regina v. A.K. (2009)
Charges of Assault x 3 (domestic) were withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice after extensive pre-trial discussions with the Crown regarding the vagueness of the statement of the complainant.  Based upon defence material provided by Joseph Neuberger the Crown agreed to withdraw all charges.

Regina v. G.S. (2009)
Client acquitted of sexual assault charge in the Ontario Court of Justice.  The allegation involved sexual contact over a four hour period with an employee in a store.  All sexual contact was alleged to have occurred in a backroom with no surveillance cameras.  The defence sought production of four hours of surveillance for the cameras in the store.  Defence counsel Joseph Neuberger carefully analyzed the DVD surveillance recordings producing a detailed frame by frame and second by second chart outlining all actions of the client and the complainant.  Through detailed examination, the defence was able to establish that the actions of the complainant did not match her story and all timing and details as provided by the complainant were contradicted by the recorded surveillance.  As such, the client was found not guilty of the charge.

Regina v. B.M. (2009)
Charges of Assault with Weapon, Assault causing Bodily Harm, Utter Death Threats, and Possession of a Weapon for a Dangerous Purpose, all withdrawn at trial in the Ontario Court of Justice.  Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger persuaded the Crown that the inconsistencies in the statements of the Crown witnesses were extremely difficult to overcome.   As such, all charges were withdrawn.

Regina v. M.G. (2009)
Uttering threats charge in Halifax

David Rose appears in Halifax, Nova Scotia Court with client on Uttering Threats Charge, which was withdrawn as trial was to commence.

Regina v. A.M. (2009)
Client found not guilty after trial in the Ontario Court of Justice of Sexual Assault and Sexual Exploitation.  The complainant and the client were known to each other only through the accused provision of transportation services for the complainant.  The complainant alleged that Mr. A.M. had sexually assaulted her during transport one morning.  Detailed defence investigation about the timing of the alleged sexual assault established that during the time frame that the complainant stated the sexual assault occurred, A.M. never drove the complainant in the mornings. Records obtained by defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger undermined the timing of the allegations.   Other detailed defence preparation established material inconsistencies in the complainant's identification of A.M.  Accordingly, A.M. was acquitted of all charges.

Regina v. J.Y. (2009)
Client acquitted of Intimidation x 3, Criminal Harassment x 3, Utter Death Treats, and Assault (Domestic) after two day trial in the Ontario Court of Justice.  Detailed and vigorous cross-examination of the complainant with the use of prior statements, including birthday cards, Valentine's Day cards and other related writings, resulted in undermining the credibility of the complainant.  Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger cross-examined the complainant for the better part of four hours yielding numerous inconsistencies and successfully developed the defence.  As a result the client was found not guilty of all charges.

Regina v. V.I. (2009)
Charges of assault and assault bodily harm withdrawn prior to the commencement of the trial as a result of the defence investigation producing contradictory evidence to the complainant's versions of events, including obtaining an expert dental report establishing that the alleged injury could not have been caused by the client.  Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger obtained detailed statement from a witness that again undermined the evidence of the complainant.  As such, all charges were withdrawn.

Regina v. C.A. (2009)
Charges of criminal harassment and assault withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice after detailed defence investigation establishing that the complainant fabricated the allegations.

Regina v. H.D. (2009)
Charges of Domestic assault x 6, Assault and Fail to Comply with bail x 4 withdrawn after extensive pre-trial defence disclosure and discussions with the Crown Attorney. The prosecution evidence alleged that the client, during the course of committing an assault on his wife, also self-inflicted head and facials injuries (on himself) for which he sought to blame one of the complainant's witnesses as the perpetrator.   The investigating police officers viewed the injuries to H.D. (Client) and determined that they were self-inflicted.  Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger commenced an investigation into the reasons for the complainant to fabricate the allegations.  Joseph Neuberger retained three medical experts and obtained opinion evidence that the injuries sustained by his client were not self-inflicted.  As well the injury sustained by the complainant was not consistent with her description of how she stated that she was assaulted. In addition the defence obtained defence witness statements undermining the stories of the Crown witnesses.  All defence evidence was presented in a defence forensic binder put together by Joseph Neuberger.  The defence evidence compelled a determination that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction as against H.D. Accordingly, all charges were withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice.

Regina v. O.G. (2009)
Charge of Assault withdrawn prior to trial after defence counsel Joseph Neuberger conducted defence investigation yielding two defence witness statements that undermined the credibility of the complainant.  As a result, the Crown had no reasonable prospect of conviction and the charge was withdrawn.

Regina v. J.M. (2009)
Charges of Criminal Harrassment withdrawn prior to trial pursuant to negotiation with Crown regarding the reasonable prospect of conviction.

Regina v. Hoyte (2009)
Client acquitted of Domestic Assault in the Ontario Court of Justice pursuant to comprehensive cross-examination of Complainant and detailed presentation of defence evidence.

Regina v. Page-Cole (2008)
Charges of Aggravated Assault withdrawn at the preliminary hearing in the Ontario Court of Justice after detailed presentation of evidence undermining the evidence of the main Crown witness.

Regina v. M.R. (2008)
Charges of assault police officer x 2 withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice after directed challenge to the force used in apprehending the client.

Regina v. Pealow (2008)
Client found not guilty of a charge of utter death threat (domestic) in the Ontario Court of Justice after two day trial.  The Crown conceded a verdict of not guilty after defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger completed his cross-examination of the complainant. 

Regina v. V.D. (2008)
Client found not guilty of sexual assault, sexual interference and invitation to sexual touching after a five day jury trial in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice.  Detailed cross-examination by Joseph Neuberger of the Crown witnesses arising from extensive preparation proved effective in undermining the credibility of the complainant and the supporting Crown witness.  A strong jury closing resulted in a jury verdict of not guilty within 1 hour 20 minutes of the jury deliberating.

Regina v. Rohani (2008)
Charge of sexual assault withdrawn at trial in the Ontario Court of Justice.  Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger aggressively pursued defence investigation on fabrication by the complainant.  Crown withdrew as they had no reasonable prospect of conviction.

Regina v. L.D. (2008)
Domestic charges withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice pursuant to pressure by defence lawyer Ms. Stacey Nichols to assess the Crown's reasonable prospect of conviction.

Regina v. Williams (2008)
Client found not guilty of possession of a loaded handgun and carry concealed weapon after a two week jury trial in the Ontario Superior Court.  our Defence lawyer advanced a duress argument, such that the client held the weapon under threat of death.  After careful and detailed cross-examination of crown witnesses, which supported the behaviour of the client at the time of investigation and arrest consistent with someone who might have been frightened by a threat of harm, and a strong jury closing, the client was found not guilty of both charges.

Regina v. Graham (2008)
Charges of domestic assault and fail to comply withdraw at trial in the Ontario Court of Justice.  Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger argued successfully a Charter violation of the client's right to be tried within a reasonable time.  Aggressive pursuit of full disclosure and setting a trial date established that the defence was seeking the earliest possible trial date.  The delay of 11.5 months, and consequently the charges were withdrawn

Regina v. D.J. (2008)
Client acquitted of Kidnapping, Forcible Confinement, Aggravated Assault and Conspiracy to Committ Assault in the Ontario Court of Justice pursuant to skillful cross-examination of witnesses and legal argument by Ms. Stacey Nichols which revealed that Crown case did not meet required standard for conviction.

Regina v. Thomas (2008)
Client acquitted of domestic assault at trial in the Ontario Court of Justice following cross-examination of the complaint demonstrating numerous instances of inconsistencies in the complainant's version of the allegations and a complete lack of evidence of an assault.

Regina v. M.S. (2008)
Client found not guilty of domestic assault after three day trial in the Ontario Court of Justice.  Detailed and thorough cross-examination of the complainant by defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger focused on instances of past aggressive behaviour by the complainant including previously biting the client and implausible and exaggerated aspects of her evidence.

Regina v. Meek (2008)
Charges of domestic assault x 3 and fail to appear withdrawn prior to trial after defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger established lack of credibility of the complainant's allegations.

Regina v. S.M. (2008)
Charges of Robbery x 2 and Assault x 2 withdrawn prior to trial after Joseph Neuberger negotiated withdrawal of all charges based on inconsistencies in the evidence of Crown witnesses.

Regina v. De Karic (2008)
Client found not guilty of charges of domestic assault and assault bodily harm in the Ontario Court of Justice after aggressive defence by Joseph Neuberger including careful attention to the set date phase of the proceedings and the lack of evidence to substantiate the charge. 

Regina v. Szymanski (2007)
Charges of Sexual Assault and Assault discharged at the Preliminary hearing in the Ontario Court of Justice after extensive and detailed cross-examination of the Crown witnesses including undermining the credibility of the complainant, and establishing that the complainant had motive to fabricate.

Regina v. C.S. (2007)
Charge of Assault withdrawn prior to trial after Joseph Neuberger established that accused was assaulted first and sustained injury caused by the complainant.

Regina v. K.R. (2007)
Charges of Assault with Weapon and Assault withdrawn prior to trial, based upon defence establishing credibility problems with the Crown's case.

Regina v. Kovachev (2007)
The client was charged with 4 counts of sexual assault and sexual interference. Four day trial in the Ontario Court of Justice before Justice Campling. Client was acquitted of all charges.

Regina v. Johnston (2007)
Charges of dometic assault, threaten death and careless storage of amunition withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice after defence investigation into complainant's attempts to extort a financial settlement in the Family law proceedings. Defence counsel Joseph Neuberger retained the services of a private investigator and obtained statements and a recording of voice message left that seriously undermined the credibility of the complainant. As a result, the domestic assault and threatening allegations were withdrawn prior to trial.

Regina v. A.S. (2007)
Client found not guilty of sexual assault, sexual interference after a three day trial in the Ontario Court of Justice. Detailed and vigorous cross-examination of the complainant undermined the reliability of the evidence of the complainant. The trial judge accepted defence counsel Joseph Neuberger's submissions on the lack of plausibility of the various allegations. Accordingly, the client was acquitted of all charges.

Regina v. Hassen (2007)
Client found not guilty of sexual assault by a jury after counsel's thorough cross-examination of complainant revealed contradicitions and inconsistencies in the Crown's evidence.

Regina v. P.M. (2007)
After trial, client found not guilty of domestic assault charges arising from York Regional Police investigation in Newmarket.

Regina v. W.W. (2007)
Client found not guilty of sexaul assault x 2, sexual interference x 2, arising from historical sexual assault allegations in the Superior Court of Justice after a three day trial. At the preliminary hearing, detailed and comprehensive cross-examination produced transcripts of evidence that provided fruitful support for the defence theory at trial. During the Superior Court trial, defence counsel Joseph Neuberger relentlessly cross-examined both complainants on all apsects of their evidence including inconsistencies generated by the transcripts from the prelimary hearing and video taped statements. Through cross-examination the defence theory was put to each witness. At the end of the cross-examination of both complainants, the Crown conceded that there was no longer any reasonable prospect of conviction and directed the court to dismiss all four charges.

Regina v. D.V. (2007)
Charges of Sexual Assault and Gang Sexual Assault stayed at the preliminary hearing in the Ontario Court of Justice. Relentless defence requests by Joseph Neuberger for detailed disclosure, and comprehensive examination of the Crown evidence resulted in the Crown being delayed in providing the case to the defence. By the time of the preliminary hearing, with the significant delay, inconsistencies in the Crown's evidence and the use of forensic evidence supporting the client's denial of the allegations resulted in the charges being stayed.

Regina v. R.M. (2007)
Client found not guilty of Sexual Assault and Forcible Confinement after three day trial in the Ontario Court of Justice. Cross- examination of the complainant developed the defence theory that all actions alleged were consensual. Further, cross-examination established numerous inconsistencies in the evidence of the complainant as compared to her DVD statement. Consequently, the Justice found the client not guilty of both charges.

Regina v. J.T. (2007)
Charge of sexual assault withdrawn after successful mistrial application sought by Joseph Neuberger in the Ontario Court of Justice.

Regina v. Sibte (2007)
Client acquitted of sexual assault charge after two day trial in the Ontario Court of Justice. Detailed cross examination by Joseph Neuberger undermined the reliability of the complainant's allegations resulting in a finding of not guilty

Regina v. I.D. (2007)
Charges of utter deat threats x 2, and assault (Domestic) withdrawn at trial in the Ontario Court of Justice as a result of defence analysis of the statements of witnesses and the complainants establishing that the allegations could not have occurred. Thus, all charges were withdrawn.

Regina v. M(L) (2006)
Charges of Robbery withdrawn by Crown Attorney after counsel successfully argues that there is no reasonable prospect of conviction due to identity issues.

Regina v. Young (2006)
Client acquitted of criminal harassment after thorough cross-examination of Complainant. Judge agrees pursuant to counsel's submissions that offence of criminal harassment not made out.

Regina v. Ahmad (2006)
Five charges of sexual assault dismissed after defence cross-examination of the Complainant pinpointing numerous inconsistencies in the evidence.

Regina v. Tuitt (2006)
Charges of Threatening and Fail to Comply with Recognizance withdrawn by Crown Attorney after Defence points out difficulties with the anticipated evidence and problems with the charging documents.

Regina v. D.S. (2006)
Client found not guilty of sexual assault and assault after 3-day trial in the Ontario Court of Justice, after detailed and vigorous cross-examination of all Crown witnesses, including the complainant and her witnesses. Extensive preparation of the client also assisted in the client being believed by the Judge and based upon the credibility issues of the complainant and her witnesses, the charges were dismissed.

Regina v. Simpson (2006)
Charges of Assault x 4 (Domestic), Threaten Death and Fail to Comply all withdrawn at trial in the Ontario Court of Justice as a result of defence investigation disclosing numerous inconsistencies in complainant's evidence and fabrication of other allegations.

Regina v. Zamkovoj (2006)
Two counts of assault, one count of threatening death and one count of breached probation withdrawn after Complainant does not attend court and Crown asks for adjournment to secure her attendance. Counsel presented recanting statement taken from Complainant by private investigator, forming basis for Judge not granting adjournment and reason why charges ultimately withdrawn.