Timothy M. Harrington

Shareholder / Director

tharrington@shaheengordon.com
Download Attorney vCard

Tim is a respected trial lawyer with over 20 years of experience helping clients handle serious legal problems and advising them how to successfully navigate their way through an unfamiliar and often hostile legal system.

Tim’s practice focuses on criminal defense, divorce and family law, and complex civil litigation in State and Federal courts. He has exceptional courtroom, litigation and case management skills and is listed as one of the National Trial Lawyers Top 100 Trial Lawyers.

Tim is a Partner and Vice President at Shaheen & Gordon. He served as a member of the firm’s Management Group from 2007 through 2014.


Admissions

  • 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

Professional Associations & Memberships

  • New Hampshire Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers
  • New Hampshire Trial Lawyers Association
  • National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers
  • American Association for Justice

Career

  • B.A., University of Massachusetts, Amherst
  • J.D., Franklin Pierce Law Center
  • Assistant Strafford County Attorney, Dover, NH
  • Assistant City Prosecutor, Concord, NH
  • Senior Assistant Rockingham County Attorney, Brentwood, NH
  • Shaheen & Gordon, P.A., Dover, NH

Representative Cases

  • Not Guilty - Negligent Homicide

    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.

  • Sale/Possession of Controlled Drugs

    Client charged with Class A misdemeanor offense of Possession of Marijuana. Client rejects State’s plea offer and opts to go to trial. On the day of trial the prosecutor drops the charge after the defense points out that he does not have the required certified lab report on the marijuana. CASE DISMISSED.

  • Charges Dropped - Stalking

    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

  • Not Guilty & No Convictions - 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 denies the allegations and goes to trial. At trial the defense contests the charges and argues 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.

  • Case Dismissed - Sale / Possession of Controlled Drugs

    Client charged with Class A misdemeanor offense of Possession of Marijuana. Client rejects State’s plea offer and opts to go to trial. On the day of trial the prosecutor drops the charge after the defense points out that he does not have the required certified lab report on the marijuana. CASE DISMISSED.

  • Reckless Conduct

    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.

  • 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

  • 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 fabricate 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.

  • Internet Luring/Solicitation

    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 has 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.

  • Burglary

    Client charged with unlawfully entering the apartment of a female college student with the intent to sexually assault her. At trial the defense brings 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.

  • D.W.I./D.U.I./O.U.I.

    Client stopped for weaving. The police officer officer detected and 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 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 case to arrest client for DWI. The Judge agreed. CASE DISMISSED.

  • D.W.I./D.U.I./O.U.I.

    Client stopped for not having headlights on. The police officer observed no erratic operation. The officer detects an odor of alcohol coming from inside the car, but never coming from the client and never tries to determine if the odor is coming from the passenger. Client admits to taking a Percocet and having a shot of tequila about 2 hours earlier. Client does not exhibit any signs of impairment, such as red, glassy eyes, slurry speech or dexterity problems in retrieving license and registration. Client is directed to exit the car walk to the rear of car. Client does so and again officer observes no signs of impairment or any odor of alcohol. Officer then asks client to perform field sobriety tests, which client agrees 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.

  • D.W.I./D.U.I./O.U.I.

    Client stopped for speeding. Client agrees to take field sobriety tests, after which the police officer arrest him for D.W.I. Client refuses to take a breath alcohol test. At trial the defense cross-examined the police officer on numerous aspects of the standardized field sobriety tests, pointing out several areas of the testing in which the officer gave the client incorrect instructions or failing marks that were not justified, resulting in very questionable results on the tests. Judge finds client NOT GUILTY.

  • D.W.I./D.U.I./O.U.I.

    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.

  • Sale/Possession of Controlled Drugs

    Client charged with the felony offense of Possession with Intent to Sell Marijuana. Through negotiation with the prosecutor the charge is reduced to a Class A misdemeanor Possession of Marijuana charge and client accepts plea offer to a suspended jail sentence.

  • D.W.I./D.U.I./O.U.I.

    Client stopped for making an illegal left turn. Client agrees to take filed sobriety tests after which he is arrested for D.W.I. Client agrees to take a breath test which results in a .12 BrAC level. Client reject’s State’s plea offer and opts to go to trial. Just prior to trial starting the prosecutor realizes she does not have the required certification for the breath test machine and offers to drop the DWI charge if client pleads to a Reckless Operation charge. Client accepts offer. THE DWI CHARGE IS DROPPED.

  • Operating After Suspension (Subsequent Offense)

    Client charge with O.A.S. (Subsequent Offense). Client rejects State’s plea offer and opts for trial. At trial the defense questions the State’s witnesses (two State Troopers) regarding the client’s certified motor vehicle, which appeared to show that the client’s license was valid on the date the State says it was under suspension. In closing arguments, the defense points out to the judge State’s failure to provide available motor vehicle records regarding client’s suspension. Further, the defense points out to the judge that the criminal complaint against the client is defective in that it failed to allege a material element of the offense of O.A.S. (Subsequent Offense). Judge finds client NOT GUILTY.

  • Not Guilty - Criminal Threatening With a Firearm

    Client charge with pointing a 9 mm handgun at his neighbor and threatening to kill him. Because a firearm was allegedly used, client was facing a mandatory minimum sentence of 3 years in prison if convicted. Client asserts he acted in self-defense and in defense of his wife. At trial defense focuses 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

Our Distinguishing Awards & Honors

We Thrive on Winning