This page contains a few of the notable cases that Mr. Zoppi has won at trial. What it does not outline is the hundreds of charges that he gets withdrawn for his clients every year without need for a trial. While Mr. Zoppi maintains good relationships with the various Crown Attorney’s offices and has a demonstrated history of being able to get charges withdrawn without trial, when hiring a criminal lawyer make sure you are hiring someone who can win at trial when the negotiations are unsuccessful. Mr. Zoppi’s default approach to criminal charges is: 1) see if he can convince the Crown Attorney to withdraw charges; 2) if not, see you at trial.
Drinking And Driving
R. v. S. R.
The client was stopped by police for weaving while travelling on the Don Valley Parkway. Police had the client provide a sample in a roadside screening device and he registered a Fail. He was taken to the station where he provided two samples of his breath, both of which were over 200, almost 3 times the legal limit. Mr. Zoppi took the matter to trial, and at trial charges of Impaired Driving and Over 80 were dismissed as a result of an application to have the breath sample excluded on the basis that the police officers did not have sufficient grounds to have the client blow in the screening device at the roadside.
R. v. E.C.
Client was stopped as part of the RIDE program. He admitted to consuming alcohol, and had the smell of an alcoholic beverage on his breath. The investigating officer had him provide a roadside screening device sample, which he failed. She then had him provide a sample of his breath into an approved instrument, where he registered readings of 150 and 140 respectively. Criminal defence lawyer Graham Zoppi engaged in vigorous cross-examination of the officer’s knowledge and use of the roadside screening device, challenging whether it was reasonable for her to make a formal breath demand based on the screening device reading of “F”. The trial judge found that Mr. Zoppi’s cross-examination exposed numerous substantial problems with the Crown’s case, and E.C. was found not guilty.
R. v. A.S.
Client was pulled over by the police after his vehicle sat through a whole cycle of changes in the traffic lights without moving his vehicle. When the police officer questioned him about whether he had been drinking that evening, the accused started jamming his mouth full of crackers. As a result the officer asked the accused to provide a roadside screening device sample. The accused made several attempts to blow that the officer believed to be fake attempts. The officer then charged the accused with Refuse Breath Sample. At trial, criminal defence lawyer Graham Zoppi successfully argued that the officer had not had lawful grounds to make a demand for a sample of his client’s breath, and his client was acquitted.
R. V. M.G.
A landmark case in which Graham Zoppi was the criminal defence lawyer. Toronto police had charged Mr. Zoppi’s client with the offence of Over 80. Mr. Zoppi brought an application to the court arguing that his client had a constitutional right to disclosure of data and information regarding the historical performance and maintenance of the breathlyzer machine she had been tested with. This was one of the first reported cases in which such an application was successful, is cited by judges in over 30 subsequent decisions, and changed the way that disclosure is provided in many Crown Attorney offices.
R. v. R. B.
The client was at fault for an accident that caused 3 cars to be completely totalled. At trial, Mr. Zoppi successfully argued that his client’s Charter right to a speedy trial had been violated, and the charges were dismissed by the court. Had Mr. Zoppi not made this creative Charter argument, there was no other defence available and the client would have inevitably been found guilty.
R. v. S.M.
Client was found by police with his car embedded in a snowbank, behind the wheel of his car, with skid marks on the pavement leading up the snowbank. Upon being asked by the officers to exit the vehicle, the client exhibited serious signs of intoxication, including wetting his pants. Criminal defence lawyer Graham Zoppi successfully argued that the prosecution had not proven that his client was in “care and control” of the motor vehicle, and his client was accordingly acquitted.
R. v. R.P.
High profile client under media scrutiny was alleged to have processed approximately one million dollars in fraudulent cheques. Graham Zoppi successfully applied to have the client’s charges stayed as a result of unreasonable delay.
R. v. R.P. (#2)
This was a case involving the same client as the above case, again tendering fraudulent cheques, this time to the tune of approximately $60,000. Graham Zoppi filed materials to have the charges dismissed for unreasonable delay and convinced the Crown Attorney that he was going lose the application. Accordingly, the Crown Attorney did not even argue the application but asked the court to stay the charges for delay. Newspaper article on the case can be found here .
R. v. P.T.
In this highly publicized case, Mr. Zoppi’s client was alleged to have been at the heart of an international credit card ring and faced over 300 credit card fraud related charges. Police stumbled across the alleged conspiracy while engaged in what was ultimately determined to be an unlawful search of the accused’s vehicle. The officer testified that the basis for the search was that he had found open alcohol within the vehicle, which entitled him at law to search for further alcohol. Following cross-examination by Mr. Zoppi and co-counsel the trial judge found that the investigating officer fabricated or concealed evidence and that the search was unlawful. Fraudulent credit cards that were located within the van and evidence obtained by way of a later search of the client’s residence were excluded from the trial, and all charges were dismissed. For the news article click here. For a copy of the judgment, click here.
R. v. R.H.
Client was alleged to have attacked the complainant with a machete while his alleged accomplice attempted to run the complainant down with his car. Mr. Zoppi through cross-examination and argument was able to chart for the trial judge clear attempts by the Crown witnesses to alter their versions of events to conform with one another’s. This was cited by the trial judge as the primary cause for concern with the Crown’s case, and Mr. Zoppi’s client was found not guilty.
R. v. T.S.
Client was alleged to have stabbed the complainant multiple times inside an apartment building, then followed him outside to deliver a slash across the throat. Complainant testified that he knew the client from 5 prior occasions when the client allegedly sold him drugs. Complainant was cross-examined extensively by criminal defence lawyer Graham Zoppi on the inconsistencies between his version of events and the medical reports outlining his injuries. Following this lengthy cross-examination, the trial judge found that despite having picked Mr. Zoppi’s client out of a photo lineup, the complainant’s credibility had been sufficiently undermined by Mr. Zoppi’s cross-examination that she had no choice but to find Mr. Zoppi’s client not guilty.
R. v. A.K.
In this case Mr. Zoppi’s client was alleged to have attacked another youth and imbedded a machete in his skull. Due to cross-examination by Mr. Zoppi and co-counsel, the reliability of the Crown witnesses was put in serious doubt, and Mr. Zoppi’s client was acquitted.
R.v. S.K. (1)
In this case Mr. Zoppi’s client met the complainant on a bus platform in the early morning after the subway had just closed. She was distressed and crying and he consoled her. This consolation progressed into consensual kissing. According to the complainant, the accused then proceeded to engage in non-consensual intercourse with her. Mr. Zoppi cross-examined the complainant extensively at the preliminary hearing and the trial and exposed numerous inconsistencies between her account and the objective physical evidence that existed. Mr. Zoppi’s client was acquitted. A copy of the decision can be found here.
R. v. S.K. (2)
Mr. Zoppi’s client was charged with another sexual assault while on bail for the above charges. Mr.Zoppi got his client bail a second time. He then successfully applied to access the complainant’s psychiatric records, which revealed numerous conditions which would give cause for concern about the complainant’s ability to accurately recount events. Due to delays caused by the third party records applications as well as interpreter availability problems, Mr. Zoppi succeeded in having his client’s charges dismissed for unreasonable delay.
R. v. C.T.
In this case the client’s ex-wife claimed that their 4 year old daughter had reported her father had touched her genitals. Through cross-examination Mr. Zoppi was able to establish animus on the part of the ex-wife towards the accused which created a risk that she had influenced the child’s testimony. Additionally, during cross-examination Mr. Zoppi succeeded in getting the child to agree that the alleged conduct had never taken place. His client was acquitted.
R. v. C.B.
The accused’s teenage daughter claimed that he had sexually molested her on two occasions. Mr.Zoppi was able to get access to the complainant’s therapeutic records which revealed a differing account of the events that severely undermined her credibility. Mr. Zoppi’s client was acquitted.
R. v. M.S.
The accused was charged with inappropriate touching of his 15 year old nephew. Mr. Zoppi cross-examined the complainant extensively, and over the course of several days of questioning, eventually exposed inconsistencies and other serious credibility issues in the complainant’s testimony. Mr.Zoppi’s client was acquitted.
R. v. M.M.
Client was on bail for a robbery charge when he was found in an apartment that contained 4 loaded firearms. Gun lawyer Graham Zoppi got the client bail, and ultimately was successful in persuading the Crown Attorney’s office to drop the charges against his client.
R. v. C.A.
Client was charged with possession of a loaded sawed-off shotgun which was found by police in the trunk of his car. Firearms lawyer Graham Zoppi successfully argued at trial that the shotgun was located as a result of an unlawful search by the police. The shotgun was excluded from evidence, and the client was acquitted of possession of a loaded prohibited weapon. Further, the client was acquitted of carrying a concealed weapon with respect to a pellet gun and a knife that were located in the waistband of his pants. – CLICK TO SEE NEWS ARTICLE
R. v. J.F.
Client was charged with respect to a shooting at a nightclub. 24 hours after the shooting he was found with a shell casing that matched the gun used in the shooting, and the gun was recovered from the ground feet from where he was arrested. Client was found not guilty of possession of the firearm and of the shooting.
R. v. J.F. (2)
Client was charged with possession of a firearm that was brandished at a second nightclub. The firearm was located within feet of where the accused was standing, and the accused was in possession of a shell casing that matched the gun. Client was found not guilty of possession of the firearm that was brandished at the club.
R. v. A.B.
Graham Zoppi’s client was alleged to have used inappropriate discipline on his child by beating him with a belt as punishment. Graham Zoppi successfully argued that his client’s right to a speedy trial had been violated, and the charges were dismissed.
R. v. J.M.
Graham Zoppi’s client was alleged to have “sucker punched” a 6 foot tall, 300 pound bouncer and knocked him out with one punch. Graham Zoppi successfully argued that his client, who was 5’8 and 150 pounds had struck the bouncer in self defence, and that the reason he was able to fell the giant with one punch was not because he had struck him out of the blue, but rather because the bouncer had a “glass jaw”.