R. v. L.P.
Police were investigating a cocaine importing and trafficking network. They observed L.P. engage in a meeting with a known drug trafficker and conducted surveillance for several days. The drug squad obtained and executed a general warrant locating one kilogram of cocaine and approximately $500,000 in US and Canadian currency. The general warrant allowed the police to surreptitiously enter the accused’s residence and vehicles on multiple occasions where videos and samples of alleged cocaine were taken. After a week of Charter litigation, the alleged cocaine and cash were excluded from evidence based on the search being found to be unreasonable.
R. v. M.S.
After a lengthy investigation, the police took down two vehicles and located approximately 60 kilograms of cocaine concealed in secret compartments. The charges were stayed by the prosecutor part way through a Charter motion due to serious and apparent potential breaches of M.S.’s Section 10(b) Charter rights.
R. v. M.A.
A confidential informer provided information identifying M.A. as a large-scale cocaine trafficker. The police obtained and executed a search warrant on M.A.’s residence. Police found almost one kilogram of cocaine and a large amount of Canadian currency. Mr. Weisberg quickly identified serious deficiencies in the warrant and the implementation of M.A.’s Right to Counsel. After a devastating cross-examination, of three officers at a preliminary hearing, the prosecutor withdrew the charges.
R. v. N.Z.
Police received confidential information about a ring of high-end drug traffickers. Undercover officers set up surveillance to confirm the information. After days of an investigation, a search warrant was granted. Powder cocaine and crystal meth were seized at the kilogram level. At the end of the three-day preliminary inquiry, the Crown withdrew the charges against N.Z. due to a reasonable prospect of conviction issues.
R. v. B.R.
Client found not guilty of importing and conspiring to import cocaine. The RCMP conducted a controlled delivery of two kilograms of cocaine. This controlled delivery involved an undercover officer disguised as a Canada Post worker and a surveillance team. The client always maintained her innocence insisting she had been set up by a friend. At the end of the trial, she was found not guilty.
R. v. D.D.
Mr. Weisberg’s client was charged with possessing cocaine for the purpose of trafficking. D.D. was accused of picking up approximately two kilograms of cocaine with a street value in the range of $100,000.
Police officers on a confidential tip set up surveillance in the parking lot of a well-known local gentlemen’s club. Officers observed D.D. park his car and leave the trunk open. Another man came along and placed a bag full of cocaine in that trunk. D.D. was taken down on the way back to his car.
D.D. was found not guilty because the trial judge had a reasonable doubt on the basis that the accused’s evidence afforded the possibility of a police setup.
R. v. K.F.
The police set up surveillance after receiving confidential information that cocaine trafficking was occurring out of a specific residence. Officers confirmed through a stakeout of the house that drug activity was present. A team of drug officers executed a search warrant on the house. K.F. was discovered in a bedroom with another man. In that room, the police located cocaine, scales, and cash. K.F. did not testify and was found not guilty.
R. v. S.B. – first case
Police set up a sting operation to catch a back-end dealer selling cocaine to a street level dealer. The street level dealer had a brief meeting with an older man in a high-end vehicle. The street level dealer then had a meeting with S.B. He returned and sold cocaine to an undercover police officer. S.B. was found not guilty at trial.
R. v. S.B. – second case
Police received information from a confidential informant that S.B. was distributing powder cocaine out of a high-end condominium. Police attempted to corroborate the confidential information and eventually executed a search warrant at the high-end home. S.B. was arrested as he arrived at the condominium. A kilo-level cocaine seizure occurred. The police also seized tens of thousands of dollars in jewelry and cash.
Mr. Weisberg cross-examined the affiant of the search warrant at the preliminary inquiry. Errors, omissions, and mistakes were exposed during the cross-examination. The Federal Prosecutor later withdrew the serious charges knowing that the case was likely doomed to fail at trial because of Mr. Weisberg’s cross-examination.
Note re: S.B. – third case to fourth case
While being represented by Mr. Weisberg two other sets of charges were also withdrawn (breach of bail and assault).
R. v. J.R. – first case
The accused was driving a sports car and stopped by police. The officers claimed to have grounds to search the vehicle and discovered cocaine, scales, and cash. J.R. faced possession for the purpose of trafficking charges. Mr. Weisberg vigorously attacked the officers at trial and dismantled their stories. The officers stop and questioning of the accused were found to have violated his rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. J.R. did not testify and was found not guilty.
R. v. J.R. – second case
J.R. was stopped again by police and searched. The accused was in a similar sports car as in the first case. The officers tore apart his vehicle to find cocaine, scales, and cash. Counsel approached the case with certain tactical strategies that paid off. The Crown was not able to prove its case at trial and halfway through the case the charges were dismissed.
R. v. J.R. – third case
J.R. was charged a third time with possession for the purpose of cocaine. This time police seized an ounce of what they believed was crack cocaine. The drugs were concealed in the vehicle’s console. The trial Judge in Superior Court found Charter violations regarding the arrest of J.R. and the evidence was excluded. J.R. was found not guilty for a third time.
Note re: J.R. – fourth to seventh case
J.R. has no criminal record and has also had four other sets of charges withdrawn (possession for the purpose of cocaine (x2); possession marijuana and breach bail; and possession of a stolen car) while being represented by Adam Weisberg.
R. v. W.A.
The Emergency Task Force (Essentially Toronto SWAT) executed a high-risk search warrant. The police came into the residence looking for illegal firearms. The police did not recover any firearms but did seize a significant amount of crack cocaine. The accused was naked when the police entered and the officers claimed he advanced upon them. Two officers Tasered the accused. The police denied any further Tasering.
Mr. Weisberg conducted an intense investigation while handling the case. He was able to pull together enough evidence to prove it was likely the police had handcuffed the accused after an initial Tasering and then while he was vulnerable continued to Taser him. Adam Weisberg spent hours upon hours learning everything he could about Taser guns to execute a dynamic and authoritative cross-examination.
The trial Judge found there had been cruel and unusual punishment. The accused was granted a stay of proceedings thereby not receiving an entry on his criminal record or any sentence.
R. v. J.E.
The accused was arrested in his new luxury vehicle on the suspicion that he was impaired. Police later searched the police cruiser and found cocaine. Through cross-examination, the officer’s reliability regarding his system of searching the police cruiser was put in question. The accused was found not guilty.