R. v. A.M. Attempt Murder.
Client was charged after a man was shot in the leg, at close range, outside a notorious drug den in Northwestern Ontario. After Joel cross-examined the alleged victim and other witnesses at the preliminary inquiry, the Crown agreed that the client should not go to trial on attempt murder, but merely on reckless discharge of firearm. As of this posting, that trial has yet to be scheduled.
R. v. M.M. First Degree Murder.
Client was charged with three counts of first degree murder. The client was discharged on one count at the preliminary inquiry, and went to trial on the other two. During pretrial motions, cross-examination of several officers revealed that police had withheld disclosure— which revealed their own misconduct— from the defence and the Court, and had given false evidence (see Exposing Misconduct). Critical evidence was excluded as a result, and the second count of first degree murder was ultimately stayed. The jury convicted on the third count after the trial Judge dismissed Joel’s objections to two crucial elements of his charge, but the Court of Appeal overturned the conviction and sent the matter back for a new trial, explicitly affirming the validity of Joel’s objections. At that new trial, the Crown re-animated the previously stayed count (a tactic aimed at shoring up its prosecution, that required the assistance of the Deputy Attorney General for the province of Ontario). Despite this unprecedented step, the client was acquitted on that charge, after deliberating for more than seven days. The jury failed to reach a verdict on the remaining count, and the Court declared a mistrial.
R. v. A.G. Administering a Noxious Substance.
Client was charged with several offences, including administering a noxious substance, after it was alleged that she prepared a syringe and injected the complainant (who wanted to commit suicide) with drugs. After the preliminary inquiry, at which the complainant testified, the client was committed to trial on all counts. Joel successfully applied to quash the client’s committal on the charge of administering a noxious substance in Superior Court. As a result, the client did not have to stand trial on that charge, and no longer faced a sentence of up to 14 years.