I'm glad you can join me today I want to talk about how our law firm can win a criminal harassment trial. You'll see in other videos, I have a video on how to drop these types of charges and other how to go about getting withdrawn. So this is not to be confused with trial, this is a situation now where the crowds refuse to drop the charges, and the matters heading to trial. Okay, so what strategies do I take are the lawyers in our firm or anywhere for that matters experience to win that type of case. So first of all, it starts really, with the original disclosure, when we, when a client hires us, we order all of the police reports, the witness statements, the videos, you name it, all of the evidence that police gathered, is given to the crown attorney, and they have to give us all that documentation, whatever, whatever that is. And it can consist of literally dozens and dozens of pages up to 1000s in certain harassment cases. So once I have that, once a wears have that from our firm, I sit down and review it all. Now that may take me a day, it may take multiple days, it really depends on the length of disclosure. And I'm asking myself many questions, I'm asking myself, what are the strengths and weaknesses of the Crown's case? Do I think the crown can prove the elements of criminal harassment? Is this a winning case? is a losing case? What are the odds of winning or losing? So ultimately, if we're heading to trial, normally, it's a type of case where we think at least we have a realistic chance of winning, you know, based on the evidence, I see the case. So I'm going to meet with the client after I've finalized my opinion, my opinion at that point. And I'm going to review everything with the client go over all the case with them, review the disclosure with them, generally, I'm going to receive their version of events as well, you know, the verbal version at that point in the office and might be a couple hour meeting might be even longer if it's a more complex case. And it's the first of many things if this is heading to trial, oh, my god, there's so many meetings we're going to have in preparation, it's endless. There's gonna be dozens and sometimes hundreds of hours of work involved in in some harassment cases. So I then say the client, you know, if it's an overwhelming case against him, I tell him, we can't win this case, we need to, you know, resolve it get the best deal. We can't get the latest sense, but I'm talking about case it's winnable. I've looked at the case. I'm thinking well, you know, what has the crown really proven the elements of criminal harassment to the complainant really have reasonable fear not, not every situation where a person receives a few emails that you know, and unwanted phone calls is the person that fear, you know, I've been in cases involve where, you know, 30 year old man was claiming he was fearful of a seven year old lady or a woman for sending a few emails, it's not reasonable. I'm just giving you an example. What's not reasonable fear? So you have to ask yourself, based on the allegations that the person is making, what a reasonable person, the reasonable objective person out there in the particular circumstances of this complainant have that fear? If the answer's no, the crowd can't prove their case. And that happens often believing. But there are obviously cases where, you know, stocking and ongoing persistent emails where you've asked him stop and phone calls it at some point, the fear becomes reasonable, there's no question. So the client writes out their version of maths, I told the client look, I think we have a reasonable chance of winning here. Part of it is based on this documentation, there's emails, I don't think they crossed the line. Part of it's based on what this witness is saying they've given us a statement that I think we can challenge is not being credible or reliable in the crowds. And the client says okay, off to trial we go. So when I had the client come in later review that disclosure by themselves write out their version of events, we go through multiple drafts of that to hone that I refresh their memory, we need to get it in a format that's court friendly, if I might put it that way, the way I want them to testify in court, their words, the truth, of course, they're saying they didn't do it. And that, that document their statement, coupled with the disclosure is my roadmap, if you will, for challenging and trying to win this case at trial. In the real hard work, there's a lot of upfront hard work to get ready at this point. But the real real tons of hours go in in the months leading up to the trial. I'm going to be meeting with the client multiple times to go over and prepare their version events because they may did need to testify I need to go through mock examinations, sheep mock cross examinations, right prepare them as a crowd to make sure that they're going to be a good witness because even if you're telling the truth, you just don't care. For the witnesses to head into a good job, I mean, truthful witnesses sometimes come across as complete liars because they break down, they can't keep their story straight. So it's important to properly prepare the witness and correct things that they're saying wrong that the judge is not going to like, you know, they need to save a version of SS certain way. They need to know the questions, the crown attorney is going to ask them so that they can pair answers that are proper again, don't think a criminal trial is ever searched for the truth. I've seen very truthful witnesses get destroyed, absolutely destroyed by by clever lawyers, unfortunately, and some people are very good liars. And you know, it's a sad reality it'd been winning a trial is about hard preparation. And part of that is getting your client ready to testify in a manner where they have a chance of winning now at the trial. My strategies to try and win these type of cases are number one, to show that the elements of criminal harassment have not been met, like this wasn't really repeated stalking. The phone calls were innocuous, there was no fear. You know, it's just exaggerated. They're there. They're saying there was other following that they can't be proven. I'm looking to challenge that witness to show there was improbabilities in consistencies. If I tried to create inconsistency between the video their video statement and what they said on the witness stand and show that the judge, they can't keep their story straight, all with a view to creating a reasonable doubt. Now that Reasonable Doubt can be created in many ways. Number one, they could be the most credible and reliable witness in the world. But if the emails don't reach a level of, of harassment, you know, sending five or 10 unwanted emails is not necessarily harassment. I mean, if you've been warned by the police, they've been warned by someone to send them it could become but I mean, if you're, if it's just simple a breakup in a relationship and an accused is trying to get back with the person sends a five or 10 emails, it's not necessarily harassment. There's not necessarily fear either. Obviously, cases crossed the line, there's no question, but does this case cross a line? Even if the complaint is credible, even the arrival the documents go in? But on the other hand, the complainant could be testifying about things that are not documented. We're trying to challenge that create a reasonable doubt. So are the elements made out of do they is across the line? And is fear made out reasonable fear? Well, you can always argue that an objective person wouldn't have fear. Okay. So in the context of a breakup or relationship. You know, the breakup, the accused says 10 emails that are polite emails asking to get back together, the complainant asked not to email them, again, send some one more email, you might if we get back together, where's the fear? It has to cross the line at some point. And that that type of thing is not necessarily criminal harassment, where it's just very polite emails, at some point of volumes, emails become fearful that it could, depending on what is said in them, of course, threatening conduct is always fearful. There's no question. And I'm not trying to minimize these cases. I mean, I've been involved in many cases where there's horrible harassment, we plead guilty. And I've been involved in other cases where it doesn't make sense that we're going to trial because it's just a few innocuous emails. So that's my goal, to challenge that witness to challenge the elements of the fans to argue there's not fear, to have the client will potentially testify to say, look, I didn't follow this person, it didn't happen. If the clients, you know, there's a WD test that's applied. If the clients credibility is on the line, if they testify, and if the if the judge believes the evidence to the accused that they didn't follow that person, they must acquit. You, even if they are not less than a reasonable doubt, I should say, even if they don't believe the accused at step two of the WT test, if they're left in a reasonable doubt by it, they must acquit. And step three is which is the most powerful step at all. Let's say the judge completely rejects the evidence to the accused. doesn't believe Me? Yes, you did that following twice, or once? And you sent all those emails, I don't believe you. Well, there still could be reasonable doubt there might not be reasonable fear the emails very innocuous, and the person just looked at them at the mall once. Is there a reasonable fear beyond a reasonable doubt? Maybe, maybe not. And are the elements of the offense broken out? Is it repeated stalking is repeated emails? Is it repeated conduct of following or watching you're there, you know, at their, at their house so you can win these trials. I mean, obviously, I'm going to recommend to clients, there's overwhelming cases you can't win. But there's cases that are on the line. There's cases in the gray area, and there's overwhelmingly strong defense cases that shouldn't even go to trial. And And hopefully the crowd chooses to withdraw those type of cases, but they don't always the weak cases. So So that's how you win these cases, you work hard, you prepare the client, you prepare to cross examine the complainant and argue the case law that the case just does not meet the test. And there's a reasonable doubt either based on the case law or the facts of the case, and the case should be thrown out. Thank you for watching our video, we are absolutely committed to bringing you the best possible criminal and DUI educational videos. If you found this video helpful, please like it and subscribe to our YouTube channel. If you've been charged with a criminal offence in Ontario and require our services, please click on the link in the description below.