R. v. Ahmadi, 2025 ONCA 219

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.

https://rss.com/podcasts/the-full-court-press/1957751/