R. v. Ahmadi, 2025 ONCA 219
Échec de l'ajout au panier.
Échec de l'ajout à la liste d'envies.
Échec de la suppression de la liste d’envies.
Échec du suivi du balado
Ne plus suivre le balado a échoué
R. v. Ahmadi, 2025 ONCA 219
-
Narrateur(s):
-
Auteur(s):
À propos de cet audio
Fabrication and Guilt: R. v. Ahmadi, 2025 ONCA 219
🏀 The Full Court Press – Quick Hit
In this episode, Nate breaks down R. v. Ahmadi, a 2025 decision from the Ontario Court of Appeal, focusing on a key evidentiary issue: when an accused’s out-of-court statements can be used against them.
The Court draws a sharp line between disbelieving a statement and finding it was fabricated. Only fabricated statements—with independent evidence backing that up—can be used as circumstantial evidence of guilt.
We talk through how Ahmadi’s ever-changing police interview crossed that line, how the trial judge handled it, and why the ONCA upheld the conviction. A must-know case for anyone running—or challenging—post-offence statements.
Plus, a lawyer joke to send you off smiling.