Posted in Toronto Star Articles

By: Peter Small City Courts reporter, Published on Wed Mar 13 2013

A judge has stayed impaired driving, assault to resist arrest and other charges against a Toronto cook, ruling police used excessive force and seemed “indifferent to the truth” when testifying.

Const. Christian Dobbs repeatedly struck Raymond Costain with his elbow while arresting him, which was “unnecessary, unjustified and excessive,” provincial court Justice Ford Clements said Wednesday.

“This was unlawful extrajudicial punishment that will shock the public,” Clements said. Costain testified he was left with a permanent scar on his forehead, a sore nose and dizziness when bending down.

The incident was captured by a police car’s onboard camera, which shows Dobbs repeatedly striking Costain, who is hidden from view and face down in front of the King Edward Hotel on King St. E. three years ago.

The testimony of several officers was inconsistent with what is shown on the video, “and leads to the conclusion there was a contrived effort to justify the use of force,” Clements said.

The judge rejected Dobbs’ claim the defendant struck him.

The judge found two officers turned off cruiser cameras filming the scene in a clumsy cover-up attempt. One claimed he turned his off to conserve energy.

Outside court, Costain, 30, a cook at Porzia restaurant, said he was relieved. The father of two said he’s “lost a lot of trust” in police.

His lawyer, Leora Shemesh, said the judge’s courageous decision makes her proud to be a lawyer and she hopes the officers involved will be called to account. They have not been investigated.

Costain was arrested early on April 12, 2010, after he parked his badly damaged car, which had been in an accident, and tried to get a taxi home.

Dobbs and fellow officers believed Costain had tried to run over another constable and led police on a chase.

By: Betsy Powell and Marco Chown Oved Staff Reporters, Published on Wed Feb 13 2013

A judge has criticized an unwritten York Regional Police safety policy requiring women suspects to remove their underwire bras while they’re detained in police cells.

On Wednesday, Ontario Superior Court Justice Michelle Fuerst ordered a new impaired driving trial for Sang Eun Lee finding her rights to a reasonable search were violated when a female officer told her to remove her bra in a private room at a police station on Jan. 30, 2010.

Her decision overturns a ruling by a lower court judge who convicted Lee of impaired driving and concluded the officer was acting in accordance with a 20-year-old policy that was reasonable because of safety concerns associated with the pieces of wire in the garment.

Fuerst disagreed, finding Ontario Court Justice Anne-Marie Hourigan was wrong in concluding the search did not amount to a strip search as defined by the Supreme Court of Canada.

“The trial judge also did not consider the appropriateness of an unwritten police policy that leads to potentially differential treatment of female and male arrestees, with female arrestees wearing underwire bras being automatically and without exception subjected to a form of strip search,” Fuerst wrote in her 10-page ruling.

The decision takes issue with a blanket police policy that all women must remove their bras before entering a police cell, said defence lawyer Leora Shemesh, who argued the issue at a trial and subsequent appeal.

“Having all women take off their bras, just because they are women and charged, is simply unlawful and unconstitutional,” Shemesh said Wednesday. “Clearly there will be cases where a woman’s bra should be removed, but this was not one of those cases.”

Lee, 40, who was living in Richmond Hill at the time of her arrest, was given the mandatory one-year licence suspension and fined $1,000. Now that the conviction is quashed she will get her licence back.

Contacted for comment Wednesday, Lee said the three-year legal ordeal had been “really stressful.”

At a one-day appeal hearing last October in Newmarket, the Crown argued there was no strip search and that Hourigan was correct when she found that the officer’s purpose in asking Lee to remove her bra was to obtain it and search it, not visually inspect her breasts.

Shemesh argued her client was subjected to an unconstitutional strip search in violation of the Charter when she was required to remove her bra.

While Fuerst declined Shemesh’s request for a stay in the proceedings, she ordered a new trial in front of a different Ontario Court judge.

The Crown has 30 days to appeal. A York Regional Police media spokesman could not be reached for comment.

February 11, 2013 edition of The Toronto Star, by Betsy Powell

Why would a drug dealer leave seven kilos of methamphetamine, worth $300,000, sitting on the back seat of his car overnight in a downtown Toronto parking lot when he knows he’s being followed by police?

The question is one a defence lawyer is asking Superior Court Justice Michael Dambrot to consider when he decides whether her client, Velle Chanmany, 32, is guilty of possessing the drug for the purpose of trafficking.

“This was a man who was so paranoid of being followed that he ate, or destroyed, a phone chip so police could not get his contacts,” Leora Shemesh said Monday during closing arguments.

“He knew he was being followed and he knew the vehicles associated with the police,” she said.

The defence is alleging that Toronto police officers – Rick Shank, Glenn Asselin and possibly others – “diverted” seven kilos of meth from an earlier seizure into Chanmany’s vehicle on May 8, 2008.

The officers were working on a covert, joint-forces operation called Project Blackhawk and were frustrated that after two years, and numerous attempts, they were unable to get any evidence that Chanmany was selling illegal narcotics. He testified during the trial he sold cocaine but not meth.

A week before Asselin reported finding the meth inside Chanmany’s car, Shank stopped two men in a van leaving a suspected meth lab, Shemesh said. Shank discovered 52 kilos of meth in the rear, which he loaded into the trunk of his vehicle.

“He then lets the two men go. No one is charged. And no one is ever found again,” Shemesh told court.

Dambrot, who is hearing the case without a jury, said he found it “very puzzling” that Shank would find such a large amount of drugs, then “casually let them go.”

But he also asked, “where’s the logic” in Shank instantly dreaming up a scheme of using the drugs to frame Chanmany, and wondered if it wasn’t illogical that Chanmany left $4,000 in his car that night if he feared police might break in and take it.

“All the logic doesn’t run one way,” the judge said. Police reported seizing only $1,800, though Chanmany is overheard on wiretaps complaining that police had taken $4,650 from a black satchel hidden beneath the driver’s seat.

During her closing submissions, Crown attorney Sarah Egan told Dambrot the Crown doesn’t have to disprove the “irrational or fanciful” conspiracy theory.

“The Crown is not required to disprove conjecture,” she told court.

Allegations that Shank “secreted” away seven kilos “is unsupported by any evidence” and there is no proof of police misconduct, she said. Egan said the meth seized by Shank was later handled by the clandestine lab unit officers.

Egan added the traffic stop may seem “unusual” but “in the context of this investigation there were numerous stops conducted like this,” she told court.

Dambrot will release his ruling April 5.

February 17, 2012 edition of The Toronto Star, by Betsy Powell

Leora Shemesh, flanked by a mugshot of Frank Sinatra in her College St. office, is a tough-as-nails defence lawyer whose hardball tactics in the courtroom have made her many enemies among Crowns and the police. – Colin McConnell/Toronto Star

For some police officers and Crown attorneys in the Greater Toronto Region, defence lawyer Leora Shemesh is public enemy No. 1.

She has built a reputation alleging officers lie in court to support the charges they have laid.

Ninety per cent of her caseload is drug prosecutions, heavily dependent on police witnesses, search warrants and wiretaps. She is relentless when cross-examining police, especially when she suspects the police have side-stepped the law.

“I find certain police officers find it comical that I get so angry in court,” Shemesh says. “They smile and seem to get a kick out of it.”

Outside court, there are no smiles from her targets or adversaries.

One Crown called Shemesh a “lying piece of s—.” In another case, a police officer called her a “bitch” during a break in proceedings.

“Some say if you’re pissing people off you should wear it like a badge of honour,” Shemesh says. “I’m not sure what to make of that.”

Last week, her full-frontal attack on the conduct of Peel Region police officers against her cocaine-dealing client led a judge to deliver a scathing rebuke to the force’s drug squad. Superior Court Justice Deena Baltman found the officers beat Tan-Hung Dinh, searched his home illegally, then lied about it all in court.

Police officers, Shemesh claims, believe the law “essentially handcuffs them and is designed to preclude them from catching the bad guys.”

Her zeal to challenge authority took root in a suburban Thornhill household. “A very principled man,” Shemesh says of her father, Joe, who left Israel for Canada, where he prospered in oil and real estate despite lacking a formal education. An “advocate of the underdog,” he would write letters over things some might consider trifling, such as an unexplained three-cent bank fee. There were lively debates at the dinner table.

Shemesh was a competitive figure skater before giving up her Olympic dream and hunkering down in school, eventually landing at Osgoode Hall law school in Professor Alan Young’s first-year criminal law class.

“She stood out in the first week because she challenged me on some issue,” says Young, co-founder of the school’s Innocence Project, which investigates wrongful convictions. “It’s rare that early on in law school, but cooling her jets is not Leora’s nature.”

Shemesh says she embraced criminal law the moment the Young walked into class. “I was sold with his fake vomit and Chinese slippers.” (The vomit was a prop used to illustrate the subjective nature of what a disgusting object is; the slippers his signature footwear.)

Young said Shemesh has “enormous energy and enthusiasm and became a well-seasoned veteran early on. She will not concede unless she has to. That has earned her a reputation as a fighter – and you start to get enemies. It’s not a popularity contest, and when people talk behind your back then you’re having an impact.”

Called to the bar in 2001, Shemesh, 36, runs defences that push the envelope. She once argued that York Region police violated a drunk driving suspect’s Charter rights by forcing her to remove her underwire bra at the station because it could be used as a weapon.

It was a humiliating experience, Shemesh argued, challenging a constable on the witness stand “to find one occurrence involving someone attempting to hang themselves with an underwire bra.”

The judge didn’t buy Shemesh’s argument and convicted the woman. She’s appealing.

Standing up to police officers – the ultimate male bastion – comes at a price, Shemesh says.

Last week, at the College Park courts, Shemesh told a judge a number of off-duty Toronto police officers had come to court “to intimidate me.”

The Crown attorney laughed it off with the comment: “Shemesh, you eat nails for breakfast.”

(Most days, in fact, her breakfast consists of an English muffin in the car after getting her two daughters dressed for school. “That is a bigger negotiation process then a plea on a gun,” she says.)

Shemesh insists she found the police presence “really freaky,” adding, “they wouldn’t do that to a male defence lawyer.”

A senior police officer, told of Shemesh’s concern, accused her of grandstanding. “Oh please. Leora Shemesh isn’t intimidated by anybody, especially police officers.”

Shemesh, however, says the fact she is “hated” by cops, crowns and, she’s certain, some judges, isn’t something she shrugs off.

“My husband (boutique owner Ariel Benaich) always asks, ‘Why do you care what people think?’ I just do.”

She once “bawled her eyes out” after a Court of Appeal justice peppered her with questions, she rendering her mute despite the fact she’d “lived and breathed that file.” She remembers her colleague leaning over afterward, saying: “Not as easy as it looks, eh?”

Tough as she has become, Shemesh credits her husband for keeping her fighting spirit intact. “He is a wonderful man, who lets me have and be in the spotlight without any reservations or insecurities. He is my number one fan – next to my dad and mom of course – and he cheers me on always.”

When she believes an injustice has occurred, she channels her outrage by writing letters to the Prime Minister, the attorney general or public prosecution services “just to get someone to do the right thing.”

She’s disappointed, but not surprised, when she receives no response and is chagrined about the lack of support or empathy she encounters in non-legal circles.

“If I hear one more person say to me at a party, ‘How do you sleep at night?’ I am going to scream.”

February 10, 2012 edition of The Toronto Star, by Betsy Powell

A photograph of Tan-Hung Dinh shows obvious bruising suffered in what an Ontario Superior Court justice ruled was an unprovoked beating by Peel Region police who arrested him for drug trafficking.

Peel Region Police say they are conducting an internal investigation after a judge’s damning words about the “reprehensible” conduct of members of their drug squad. But critics are skeptical anything will be done.

“The police lied under oath in order to cover up (an) illegal search and persisted in their lying when confronted with the most damning of evidence. All these misdeeds were calculated, deliberate and utterly avoidable,” Superior Court Justice Deena Baltman said Friday in a Brampton courtroom, reading out her reasons for sparing a baby-faced cocaine dealer a prison sentence.

“The police showed contempt not just for the basic rights of every accused but for the sanctity of a courtroom,” said Baltman, referring to four officers from the force’s drug and vice unit, who are involved in a multitude of other narcotics cases in Peel.

If perjury charges are laid and the officers convicted, then all investigations would probably be tainted and charges stayed, legal observers say.

But defence lawyer Leora Shemesh says previous judicial findings of misconduct by Peel police have been ignored and she doubts this case will be different.

“Since last September, Internal Affairs has had a formal finding from a Superior Court judge who concluded the officers’ conduct was reprehensible and should be addressed,” Shemesh said.

“Nothing has happened. No charges have been laid and internal affairs appears to be asleep at the wheel.”

Shemesh represented Tan-Hung Dinh. On Friday, the 28-year-old avoided prison after Baltman found Peel officers beat him, searched his home illegally and then came to court and lied about it.

After a pre-trial Charter motion ruling released last September, Baltman cited police misconduct as the reason for excluding all evidence seized from Dinh’s home, including two kilograms of cocaine, an ecstasy press and 2,000 grams of ecstasy.

The officers involved “essentially colluded and then committed perjury, en masse. This must be addressed in a concrete way,” she wrote in her 38-page decision of Sept. 28.

A publication ban covering the ruling was lifted Friday after Dinh pleaded guilty to a remaining charge of trafficking nearly a kilo of cocaine found in the trunk of his car.

Minutes after Baltman spoke, Peel Police Chief Mike Metcalf issued a statement saying he ordered an internal investigation after learning of Baltman’s comments last fall.

“Allegations made against members of this service are taken seriously and will be investigated thoroughly,” he said.

The officers remain on active duty pending completion of the investigation.

Two Peel internal investigators were in the court Friday. They refused to acknowledge who they were or make any comment when approached by a Star reporter.

Baltman said she was deviating from a prison sentence range of five to eight years typical for trafficking in that amount of drugs because of the “serious police misconduct involved.”

She sentenced Dinh to a two-year conditional sentence, with the first half to be served under house arrest.

Prosecutor Surinder Aujula, who told court “significant factors can be found for a (sentence) reduction in this case,” asked for a two-year custodial sentence but said the Crown was not opposed to two years less one day, allowing for a conditional sentence.

Dinh has been living under strict house arrest without any breaches since he was released Sept. 11, 2009, Baltman noted. The automotive technician has no criminal record, has strong family support and appears to have been drawn into a drug subculture.

He admitted to brokering a cocaine deal on Sept. 9, 2009, when he was duped into meeting Const. Ian Dann, posing as a customer, at a Super 5 motel room in Mississauga.

Dann, along with constables Jason Hobson, Jay Kirkpatrick and Steve Roy, were inside the room. Other officers set up surveillance outside.

Dinh arrived in the parking lot, walked to the room and knocked on the door, where officers were waiting.

But when his drug trafficking charges got to court, Shemesh applied to have the charges stayed or evidence excluded. She alleged there were numerous Charter violations during the arrest.

Last summer, the judge heard evidence, including the testimony of Dinh and the officers. Baltman found a “gross disparity” in their descriptions of what happened.

Dinh testified he was pulled into the room by several officers, pushed onto a bed and beaten.

The officers denied any undue force was used, nor did they observe any injuries to him.

Citing photographs of his injuries, and evidence of his doctor, the judge sided with Dinh, saying the officers could not explain the bruises in the photos.

“Police used unwarranted physical violence against a fully cooperative subject,” she wrote in her September ruling.

Baltman added that while she found it “impossible” to determine how the injuries were caused and by whom, she was satisfied one of more of the officers “deliberately and unnecessarily injured Mr. Dinh.”

She also found other Charter breaches and excluded the drugs found in the residence.

But Baltman did find that the cocaine police obtained from his vehicle was admissible, so he faced a trial.

Dinh admitted his involvement and agreed to plead guilty but felt he needed to “tell his story,” Shemesh told court. “He has always been very clear about why he is here and what he expected out of our judicial system,” she said.

“He is settled with the fact that he is being punished for his poor behaviour and he is settled that the judical system proceeded fairly in its assessment of the conduct that was perpetrated against him.”

January 15, 2012 edition of The Toronto Star, by Betsy Powell

A lawyer is taking the relatively rare step Monday of asking a judge to investigate a woman’s claims she was coerced by fellow jurors into convicting a man of second-degree murder.

The issue is a tricky one for the justice system because it is a criminal offence for anyone to disclose what took place behind the closed doors of a jury room.

“She can’t necessarily articulate it without the possibility of being prosecuted,” says Leora Shemesh, the defence lawyer representing the woman.

Shemesh is asking the trial judge, Ontario Superior Court Justice David McCombs, to conduct a “judicial inquiry” into the woman’s allegation.

Prosecutor Andrew Sabbadini has already indicated in court the Crown’s initial position is that McCombs does not have jurisdiction to explore the issue because the case has ended.

In December, after a two-week trial, the jury deliberated for about 24 hours before finding Christopher Lewis guilty of second-degree murder. He had pleaded not guilty to first-degree murder.

On the evening of Dec. 16., the jury found Lewis guilty of killing Kerlon Charles on Feb. 28, 2005 in a vacant apartment at Bathurst St. near Steeles Ave. W.

The Crown alleged Charles was lured to the apartment by a group of men and shot 11 times.

In 2007, two men were sentenced to nine years in prison after pleading guilty to manslaughter in his death. They admitted they beat Charles with a pool cue and other weapons but denied shooting him.

A day after the verdict, one of the jurors contacted defence lawyer Don McLeod to say she did not go along with the others voluntarily.

McLeod told her to seek independent legal advice and she retained Shemesh.

During the deliberations, the jury did not at any point indicate it was deadlocked and asked only to hear a “read back” of a key witness’s testimony.

To ensure juror unanimity, jurors are often individually polled to ask if he or she agrees with the verdict. That was done in this case and the woman did not voice an objection.

In 2006, Lewis was charged with killing Jermaine Osbourne as he walked in St. Lawrence Market.

But the Crown elected not to proceed and the charges against Lewis were dropped. In April 2010, he was arrested and charged with shooting Charles after a witness in a Toronto police gang project gave a statement to police implicating Lewis. He was a key witness at last month’s trial.

Men Acquitted in Killing Ephraim Brown.

December 13, 2010 edition of the Toronto Star, by Betsy Powell

“After deliberating all weekend, the jury rejected the testimony of star Crown witness Kishauna Thomas, 21, who identified Akiel Eubank and Gregory Sappleton, both 24, as the persons who fired handguns at each other at her outdoor birthday party early on July 22, 2007.”

During the trial, Leora Shemesh supported the attacking of Thomas’s credibility and pointed to inconsistencies and contradictions in the evidence and police statements. [Read the full article of how a Toronto Criminal Defence Lawyer influenced the jury.]

Toronto Criminal Lawyer Protects Men Facing Murder Charges

If You’re Facing Murder Charges, Immediately Contact a Toronto Criminal Lawyer Experienced in Defending These Accusations

Being charged for murder is undoubtedly a frightening experience. You must do everything you can to protect yourself. Generally speaking when a case goes to trial, it is up to the jury to decide whether a person charged is guilty or not guilty. That is why it is so important to have a strong defence on your side who is able to effectively challenge the case against you.

A Toronto Criminal Lawyer is trained and skilled in doing just this. In the trial for Gregory Sappleton and Akiel Eubank, the Crown’s case was found to be weak due to a combination of eye witnesses and insufficient evidence. This presented opportunities to provide reasonable doubt for the defendants.

Gang Evidence Permitted in Jury Trial

During the three month trial, Ms. Shemesh along with Sappleton’s lawyer, Mr. Sapiano spent four weeks challenging an expert on Toronto Gangs. Thanks to Leora Shemesh’s further cross examination of two additional men pinned as shooters during the evening in question, the jury did not believe the identification evidence that was presented against Mr. Eubank and Mr. Sappleton to be sufficient.

Witness’s Credibility Questioned and Men Avoid Life in Jail

Toronto Criminal Lawyer, Leora Shemesh aided in attacking witnesses to the crimes credibility throughout the trial and pointed to inconsistencies in her testimony. Due to a strong defence and counter argument, the jury rejected the testimony and on December 13, 2010, both alleged gang members were found not guilty of second-degree murder charges for the 2007 shooting.

The trial for Akiel Eubank and Gregory Sappleton was the first time a Toronto Jury has found gang members not guilty of murder after hearing extremely prejudicial evidence from a gang expert.

If you or someone you know is living in the Toronto area and facing criminal charges, contact us online today or call (416) 944-8111.

April 5, 2005 edition of The Toronto Star, by Tracy Huffman

“Defence lawyers have been winning a number of cases involving accused grow operators because judges are ruling that search warrants are invalid…

Kim’s lawyer, Leora Shemesh argued that police violated her client’s Charter rights by entering the Highview Rd. home in Pickering without a warrant.” [Read how Toronto drug lawyer gets marijuana charges dismissed.]

Toronto Drug Lawyer Gets Marijuana Charges Dismissed

If you are facing marijuana charges in Toronto, it is essential for you to speak with an experienced Toronto drug lawyer. Marijuana charges can have serious implications and it is important for you to receive legal assistance from a skilled drug lawyer trained in handling marijuana cases.

My law practice is conveniently located in Toronto, and I defend all types of drug charges from personal possession to trafficking and importing. If you or someone you care about is facing marijuana charges, contact my office to find out how I can help you. My experience with fighting marijuana charges combined with my familiarity with constitutional arguments in the courtroom, allows me to provide you with a superior defence.

Call my Toronto office today at (416) 944-8111 for a drug lawyer who has successfully defended many clients facing marijuana charges.

March 25, 2005 edition of The Toronto Star, by Tracy Huffman

“…Officers later entered the home, testifying that they wanted to be sure there hadn’t been a break and enter and that someone wasn’t injured and trapped inside the home.

Kim’s lawyer, Leora Shemesh argued that evidence of the grow op was not obtained legitimately, with an authorized search warrant, and therefore is not admissible in court. The search of the residence was a breach of Kim’s Charter rights, she argued.” [Read the entire article and find out why an experienced drug crimes lawyer is important.]

If You Are Facing Drug Possession Charges, Call A Drug Crimes Lawyer!

If you are facing drug possession charges, you will need a drug crimes lawyer to prepare your defence. A lawyer with experience defending drug crimes charges will be able to quickly recognize whether evidence was obtained illegally and if it should be admissible in court. An experienced drug crimes lawyer will also know how to challenge the ways in which police officers may have violated your rights through unwarranted search and seizures. Police officers are trained witnesses and a drug crimes lawyer who knows how to properly cross examine these experienced witnesses, will help you get acquitted.

I am a drug crimes lawyer with a proven track record and I also teach cross examination techniques for the Advocate’s society I also have taught other senior lawyers how to effectively cross examine police officers, experts and other crown witnesses.

To learn more about fighting your drug possession charges, call me for a free consultation at (416) 944-8111.