Robbery and Armed Robbery (Home Invasion)


R. v. D.L.

This case involved two home invasion robberies with firearms. The targeted homes were supposed to be drug dealer residences. Unfortunately, the first robbery occurred at a mistaken address, and during the struggle with a law-abiding homeowner, gunshots were fired. The robber left behind a hat.

The second robbery, in the same geographic area, but years later occurred at a house being used for a marijuana grow operation. At this house, a screwdriver was left behind that was used to break into the house.

The abandoned hat and screwdriver had D.L.’s DNA profile on them.

Relying on rulings from the Court of Appeal, Mr. Weisberg argued that there was not enough identification evidence for a trial. The preliminary hearing judge committed D.L. to trial. An application to appeal (Certiorari) was brought, and the Crown Attorney withdrew the charges.

R. v. B.A.

This young man allegedly conducted a street robbery with an imitation firearm and knife. The complainants alleged that two young men had arranged to buy computer equipment off of them from the Internet. The two bandits struck one of the complainants with what appeared to be a handgun and made off with a computer. One of the complainants took a picture of one of the suspects during the robbery. The complainants eventually identified both accused persons through social media. B.A. maintained his innocence and was found not guilty because the Crown Attorney could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was one of the bandits.

R. v. A.C.

A.C. allegedly robbed a massage parlour with another accomplice. There were difficulties with disclosure, and the initial trial was adjourned. Mr. Weisberg successfully argued that the charges be dismissed/stayed due to unreasonable delay.

R. v. T.L.

T.L. had another lawyer at trial. At the conclusion of his trial, he was found guilty because his trial lawyer conceded guilt. T.L. claimed that this occurred without his instructions. Mr. Weisberg brought an ineffective assistance of counsel claim against the trial counsel on appeal. The trial lawyer claimed he had instructions. Mr. Weisberg cross-examined the trial lawyer, and the appeal was later successful. T.L.’s conviction was overturned, and a new trial was ordered.

Back to Successes