Tim is a partner at Shaheen & Gordon and Co-Chair of the firm’s Criminal Defense Practice Group. A respected trial lawyer with over 24 years of experience, Tim focuses his practice on state and federal criminal defense, complex civil litigation, and family law. He has an exceptional ability to help clients favorably resolve their legal problems, both in and out of the courtroom. Tim is listed as one of the National Trial Lawyers Top 100 Trial Lawyers and was recognized in 2019 by The Best Lawyers in America for his work in criminal defense.
Tim served as Vice President of Shaheen & Gordon from 2007 through 2018. He also served as a member of the firms’ Management Group from 2007 through 2014.
- New Hampshire Bar Association
- Maine Bar Association
- Massachusetts Bar Association
- U.S. District Court, District of New Hampshire
- U.S. District Court, District of Maine
- U.S. District Court, District of Massachusetts
Education and Career
- B.A., University of Massachusetts, Amherst
- J.D., University of New Hampshire Franklin Pierce School of Law
- Assistant Strafford County Attorney, Dover, NH
- Assistant City Prosecutor, Concord, NH
- Senior Assistant Rockingham County Attorney, Brentwood, NH
- Shareholder/Director, Shaheen & Gordon, P.A., Dover, NH
- Criminal Defense Practice Group, Co-Chair, Shaheen & Gordon, P.A.
Professional & Community Involvement
- New Hampshire Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers
- New Hampshire Trial Lawyers Association
- National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers
- American Association for Justice
Recognition & Honors
- AV Preeminent Peer Rated for Highest Level of Professional Excellence from Martindale-Hubbell®
- Best Lawyer, Criminal Defense: General Practice, 2019
- National Trial Lawyers: Top 100 Trial Lawyers
Representative Cases – Criminal
Client charged with attempted murder in the stabbing of his daughter’s ex-boyfriend. Client asserted that he stabbed the ex-boyfriend while defending himself, his wife and his daughter. This was a complex case that involved issues of domestic violence and drug addiction. At the time of the incident, there was a domestic violence restraining order in effect that prohibited the boyfriend from having any contact with daughter. Boyfriend had a documented history of assaulting daughter, including while she was pregnant, and threatening to kill her and harm her family.
At trial, the defense extensively cross-examined the ex-boyfriend on:
- his history of domestic abuse against the daughter
- the restraining order
- his repeated violations of the restraining order
- his repeated efforts to manipulate the daughter into lying for him about the incident so that he would not be prosecuted for violating the restraining order
- that the prosecution gave him immunity from prosecution for his repeated violations of the restraining order so he could testify at trial against client
- his numerous inconsistent statements at trial as compared to the prior statements he gave under oath in depositions
- his motivation to lie in order to bolster a frivolous and unsuccessful civil lawsuit he had brought against the client attempting to get money from him for the injuries he sustained in the stabbing
- that the knife used in the stabbing was, in fact, the boyfriend’s knife and that he possessed it just prior to the stabbing
- that he had manipulated the daughter into seeing him in a secluded location on the night of the incident
The defense also vigorously cross-examined the police officers called to testify by the prosecution, using their reports and audio and video recordings to support the defense case and the claims of self-defense and defense of others. The defense also presented expert psychological testimony about the cycle of domestic violence, the behavioral characteristics of abusers and victims of domestic violence, including that victims of domestic violence sometimes act to protect and shield their abusers. The defense also presented the testimony of the client, wife, daughter, as well as numerous character witnesses who testified on behalf of the client. The jury returned a verdict of NOT GUILTY
Client charged with negligent homicide as a result of a fatal motor vehicle collision. Client made a left turn from a major roadway onto a side street and did not see an oncoming motorcycle. The motorcycle crashed into the passenger side of client’s car as the client crossed the motorcyclist’s lane of travel. The driver of the motorcycle was pronounced dead at the scene. The case turned on the issue of whether client’s conduct constituted “criminal negligence”. The defense made the strategic decision to waive a jury trial and instead tried the case before a judge. At trial, the defense focused on numerous shortcomings in the State’s investigation, including its failure to conduct an adequate accident reconstruction investigation. The defense called two expert witnesses in accident reconstruction to prove the defendant was not speeding prior to the collision and was, in fact, decelerating to make the left turn. These experts were also able to determine and testify to the fact that the motorcyclist was traveling substantially in excess of the posted speed limit. The defense also produced evidence through eye witness testimony that showed the client did not drive erratically or aggressively in any way prior to the collision. Further, the defense admitted into evidence blood test results that showed client had no alcohol or drugs in his system at the time of the collision. The judge returned a verdict of NOT GUILTY.
First Degree Assault
Client charged with First Degree Assault for stabbing her boyfriend in the chest with a carving knife. Client claims she acted in self-defense. At trial, the defense focused on the injuries sustained by client and the police failures to conduct an adequate investigation, including failing to interview key witnesses that the defense interviewed and called as witnesses at trial; failing to conduct forensic testing on evidence supporting the claim of self-defense; and failing to conduct any follow-up investigation based on new evidence that supported client’s claim of self-defense. The jury returned a verdict of NOT GUILTY.
Criminal Threatening With a Firearm
Client charged with pointing a 9 mm handgun at his neighbor and threatening to kill him. Client asserts he acted in self-defense and in defense of his wife. At trial, defense focused on aggressive, threatening and provoking conduct of alleged victim, the many inconsistencies in the alleged victim's trial testimony and the prior statements he gave to the police, and the failure of the police to conduct any meaningful investigation. The jury returned a verdict of NOT GUILTY.
Aggravated Felonious Sexual Assault
Client charged with multiple counts of Aggravated Felonious Sexual Assault and Felonious Sexual Assault on two minor females. At trial, the defense brought out motive fabrication charges, major inconsistencies between pretrial statements and trial testimony, with one of the alleged victims ultimately testifying that the defendant did not sexually assault her in any way. The jury returned a verdict of NOT GUILTY on all charges.
Client charged with using the internet to lure/solicit a minor to engage in sexual acts. Client also charged with Attempted Felonious Sexual Assault arising out of the same incident. State had strong case, including a confession. Through extensive negotiations and litigation, both charges are dropped and a negotiated agreement is reached on alternative lesser charges. After a contested sentencing hearing, the court adopted the defense’s sentence recommendation, which resulted in the defendant not serving any jail time.
Client charged with unlawfully entering the apartment of a female college student with the intent to sexually assault her. At trial, the defense brought out the relationship between the client and the alleged victim and the fact that the client and his friend were invited by the alleged victim to her apartment to continue an after-hours party. The defense raised questions regarding the sobriety of the alleged victim, her memory and her credibility. Further, the defense raised questions about whether any sexual touching actually occurred and, if so, was it consensual. The jury returned a verdict of NOT GUILTY.
Client charged with felony Reckless Conduct for allegedly driving his truck at and trying to hit the alleged victim. Defense obtains videotape evidence of the incident that discredits alleged victim’s story and exonerates client. The defense provides a copy of the tape to the prosecutor. After reviewing the tape, the prosecutor agrees that client did not commit the crime. CHARGE IS DROPPED.
Sale of Crack Cocaine
Client is charged in federal court with distribution of crack cocaine. Client was targeted by the FBI, which used a long time, paid informant to make controlled purchases of crack cocaine from client. The purchases were video and audio recorded. Client declined the U.S. Attorney’s plea offer and went to trial. The defense conducted extensive cross-examination of the informant, resulting in the informant admitting that he lied to the jury several times during his direct testimony. The defense portrayed the informant as a hired gun and an admitted liar paid to set up the client at any cost. The jury returned a verdict of NOT GUILTY.
Interference With Custody
Client is charged with the misdemeanor offense of Interference With Custody for taking her grandson without the permission of his biological mother, client’s former daughter-in-law. Client denied the offense from the beginning of the case. Defense counsel tried to persuade the prosecution that the case had no merit, but the State would not settle the case without a conviction. The case went to trial and at the close of the State’s case, the defense moved to dismiss the charge, arguing that the State had failed to show that the client had acted with the intent to conceal the child and that the State failed to show that the biological mother had custodial rights to the child. The judge agreed with the defense. CASE DISMISSED.
Simple Assault & Criminal Threatening
Client charged with simple assault and criminal threatening for allegedly pushing and threatening to kill his ex-girlfriend while they were exchanging custody of their minor child. Client denied the allegations and went to trial. At trial, the defense contested the charges and argued that the allegations were fabricated by the ex-girlfriend in order to create a false basis to try and modify custody of the minor child. The defense presented eye-witness testimony and court documents as evidence. After trial, the judge found client NOT GUILTY on the assault charge and placed the criminal threatening charge on file WITHOUT A FINDING, resulting in no convictions for the client.
Client charged with stalking as a result of having contact with an alleged victim in violation of a court’s bail order. The defense was able to convince the prosecutor that the alleged contact fell within a specific exemption of the stalking law that exempted constitutionally protected activity from criminal prosecution. CHARGE IS DROPPED.
Client stopped for drifting in his lane of travel and because his passenger-side tires crossed the white fog line. The officer had followed client for several miles prior to the stop and had, in fact, crossed into another town. Client admitted to drinking, submitted to standardized field sobriety tests, and was arrested for D.W.I. Client refused to take a breath test. The defense filed a motion to suppress asserting that the motor vehicle stop was illegal. At trial, the defense cross-examined the officer on the basis of the stop. The officer admitted that he stopped client based on the observations he made of the vehicle’s operation after it had crossed the border into another town. The defense argued that the stop was illegal because it was based solely on observations made by the officer in another town where the officer had no jurisdiction. The judge agreed, granted the motion to suppress, and as a result, CASE DISMISSED.
Client stopped for weaving. The police officer detected an odor of alcohol coming from client. Client admitted to drinking. Client submitted to the standardized field sobriety tests, after which he was arrested. Client subsequently submitted to a breath test with a result of .13 BrAC. Client rejected State’s plea offer and opted to go to trial. At trial, the defense cross-examined the officer regarding how he instructed client to perform the standardized field sobriety tests. The cross-examination revealed that the officer failed to administer each one of the standardized field sobriety tests correctly. Further, cross- examination revealed that many key parts of the officer’s testimony were directly contradicted by his own written report. The defense moved to dismiss the case arguing that the officer did not have probable cause to arrest client for DWI. The judge agreed. CASE DISMISSED.
Client stopped for not having headlights on. The police officer observed no erratic operation. The officer detected an odor of alcohol coming from inside the car, but never coming from the client and never tried to determine if the odor was coming from the passenger. Client admitted to taking a Percocet and having a shot of tequila about two hours earlier. Client did not exhibit any signs of impairment, such as red, glassy eyes, slurry speech or dexterity problems in retrieving license and registration. Client was directed to exit the car and walk to the rear of car. Client did so, and again officer observed no signs of impairment or any odor of alcohol. Officer then asked client to perform field sobriety tests, which client agreed to do. Client subsequently arrested and submits to breath test with a result of a .14 BrAC. At trial, the defense argues that the officer illegally exceeded the scope of the motor vehicle stop and had no factual basis to justify having client exit the vehicle and perform field sobriety tests. The court agreed, holding that the officer exceeded the permissible scope of the stop, as such the stop was unconstitutional. CASE DISMISSED.
Client stopped for speeding. Client agrees to take field sobriety tests but informs police officer of knee and ankle injuries, as well as ongoing problems with gout. Client unable to complete the standardized field sobriety tests and is arrested for D.W.I. Client refuses to take a breath alcohol test. At trial, the defense cross-examined the police officer regarding client’s knee and ankle injuries, as well as gout. Additionally, numerous aspects of the standardized field sobriety tests were brought into question. Judge finds client NOT GUILTY.
Representative Cases – Family
Divorce – Prenuptial Agreement; Alimony
Client filed for a no-fault divorce after a short term marriage, with no children. Client earned significant six-figure income and had valuable assets including real estate, IRA, 401-K and savings accounts. A prenuptial agreement had been executed two weeks prior to the marriage that protected client’s assets. Client’s spouse requested alimony and challenged the validity of the prenuptial agreement, asserting that it was unconscionable. At the hearing on the validity of the prenuptial agreement, spouse’s counsel attempted to argue other grounds to invalidate the prenuptial agreement that were not previously alleged, including spouse’s lack of opportunity to consult with counsel. Client’s counsel objected, asserting opposing counsel’s failure to plead the grounds or notify counsel or the court in any way of the asserted grounds. The court took the objection under advisement and heard all the evidence presented by both parties on all issues. In a detailed ruling, the judge found that the prenuptial agreement was not unconscionable and was therefore valid and enforceable. The judge further ruled that opposing counsel had not appropriately raised the other grounds for challenging the validity of the prenuptial agreement, and they were therefore waived. Nevertheless, the judge went on the say that even were those grounds to be considered by the court, based on the evidence submitted at the hearing the spouse’s claims would fail. The judge then gave a detailed analysis of why the claims would fail. Prior to the temporary hearing on alimony, spouse withdrew the request for alimony and the case settled by agreement on terms favorable to client.
Post Divorce – Relocation/School District – Modification of Parenting Plan
During prior divorce proceedings, the parties had agreed that at a later date, they would decide which parent’s residence would be used to determine their child’s school district. Client wanted to change the child’s school district to the state and town where client resided. Ex-spouse objected and wanted the school district to be in the state and town where ex-spouse resided. The parties attempted but failed to resolve the matter by talking directly with each other. The parties attempted but failed to resolve the issue through negotiations between their attorneys. The parties participated in mediation, which also failed. At the temporary hearing on the issue, the court granted client’s request and issued a temporary order that authorized client to enroll the child in the school district in the state and town where client resided. Prior to the final hearing, the matter was settled by agreement on terms favorable to client.
Representative Cases – Civil
Wage & Hour Violations/Hostile Work Environment/Constructive Termination
Represented client in a class action lawsuit alleging wage & hour violations, hostile work environment, and constructive termination of employees. After extensive internal investigation by client and exchange of discovery, the parties agreed to mediation. Mediation was successful. The case resolved on favorable terms.
Breach of Contract
Represented company in a breach of contract claim for alleged failure to pay a brokerage commission on sale price of the company. Client denied the breach and asserted the broker had not procured the buyer, that it was, in fact, the client who procured the buyer and therefore the broker was not entitled to the claimed commission. After extensive negotiations failed, the parties agreed to mediation. Mediation was successful. The case resolved on favorable terms.