Jason Rabinovitch Criminal Lawyer

WANT TO TALK TO YOU ABOUT A FRIEND OR FAMILY MEMBER: WHAT ARE YOUR ?

You receive a call from the police who are investigating a friend/family member and believe you may have information that will help their investigation. What should you do?

It is your choice whether to provide a statement to the police or assist them in their investigation. Before you decide to talk, make sure you know what it is the police are investigating, whether they consider you as simply having information or if they think that you may be involved. It may be difficult to gather this information on your own. If you have any questions or concerns about speaking to the police, it is advisable to contact a lawyer who can make these inquiries on your behalf. You can call me at 416-580-7772. I can act as your intermediary to find out exactly what the police want to talk to you about. We can then discuss the options available to you so you are able to make an informed decision.

While you are not required to talk to the police, if you do decide to make any statement, you are not allowed to lie to them or to provide any misleading information. Doing either can lead to one of several criminal charges – Obstruct Police, Obstruct Justice or Public Mischief.

It is also important to remember that once you provide information to the police, you may be called as a witness at a future trial. If you are subpoenaed to Court to testify, you are required by law to attend and answer any questions which are put to you, either by the Crown or by the defence. In the Canadian legal system, you cannot refuse to answer questions put to you if you are properly subpoenaed to court.

It is also possible that in providing the police with a statement, you may be liable to criminal charges of your own. If you are placed under arrest or are detained by the police, you are given rights to counsel and are advised of your right to remain silent. On the other hand, if the police simply make a request to speak to you, and you voluntarily agree to do so, you are not given the same Charter rights. If during the course of your statement, you provide self-incriminating evidence, or say something which leads the police to refocus the scope of the investigation so that you are now a suspect, that statement may be introduced against you in a subsequent court proceeding.

There are many situations where it would be appropriate to speak to the police and provide information to them as part of their investigation. However, the decision to do so may have a significant effect on a friend, a family member or even on yourself. Before you make this decision, speak to a lawyer, get some advice, so that the decision to make, whatever that decision may be, is made fully informed and for the right reasons.

R. v. : MATTER MAY END IN
Marco Muzzo was back in court today. However, this time his case was sent up to the Superior Court (High Court) and he formally made an election to have his trial before a Judge sitting without a jury.

In the past, Mr. Muzzo's case was in bail court at the Ontario Court of Justice (Lower Court).

The movement today suggests that Mr. Muzzo will not be seeking bail. He has also waived the entire preliminary inquiry process which would suggest that he does not intend to challenge the allegations and will be entering a plea of guilty. This was stated as well by his counsel in a statement to the press.

I understand that Mr. Muzzo's expected plea will not be a joint submission. In other words, there will not be a joint position as between Mr. Muzzo's counsel and the Crown Attorney as to the appropriate sentence. This is a little unusual as both sides normally prefer some level of guarantee as to an outcome when possible.

While the Crown will probably ask for a significant jail sentence (5-8 years would not be unreasonable given the caselaw), it is open to the defence to ask for a lower sentence. By entering a guilty plea in this manner, Mr. Muzzo leaves it open to his lawyer to argue that this early guilty plea along with not having any agreement as to sentence - giving up his right to a trial without any idea of what the ultimate sentence will be - indicates that Mr. Muzzo is truly remorseful for his actions. This would be a mitigating factor to be considered by the sentencing judge and could result in a lower sentence than would have otherwise been given.

It should be noted that despite this mitigation, the very serious nature of the charges, the need to denounce this type of criminal behaviour and the need to deter others from similar actions will be the primary considerations and will mandate a penitentiary sentence.

The length of the sentence will likely be a very difficult decision for the sentencing judge due to the public attention being paid to this case and the fact that no matter what the sentence is there will likely be a significant number of people who feel it is inadequate.

This case may also be used as a significant precedent and depending on the reasoning of the sentencing judge, may be the beginning of a more stringent set of penalties for people convicted of drinking and driving.

Mr. Muzzo is next scheduled to appear in court on Feb 23.

I will defend the rights of youth who are particularly vulnerable. In this case the judge agreed that the use of the police agent was found to be manipulative trickery.

http://www.lawtimesnews.com/201510194984/headline-news/cops-chided-for-manipulative-trickery

If you need legal advice and want a strong lawyer who will fight to defend you I am available on my 24-hr cell phone at 416-580-7772 or you can find me at www.jasonrabinovitchcriminallawyer.com

Cops chided for ‘manipulative trickery’ Share An Ontario Court judge has found the Durham Regional Police Service engaged in an abuse of process by using an estranged father as a...