Representative Cases

Zen And The Right To Be Left Alone. State v. Alyssa Scheuneman CR2010-069 Graham County Arizona Found Not Guilty at Trial October 25, 2010

Alyssa Scheuneman, a woman of color, is a Spiritualist, Buddhist, Meditation and yoga teacher and resident of New York City. On June 30, 2009 she was traveling to a Buddhist retreat in Bowie, AZ. Ms. Scheuneman was stopped by Safford Police Officer's who removed her from her car, searched her purse, vehicle, trunk of her car and even had her open her mouth to see what they could find. Ms. Scheuneman explained that the glass tube the officers found was used as a visual aid in her meditation practice and that she has never smoked anything in her life. The police and Graham County Attorneys office rejected her explanation and accused her of lying. Ms. Scheuneman was charged with Possession of Drug Paraphernalia. Ms. Scheuneman secured the services of attorney Gorman, refused to plea bargain with the State and demanded a trial. The trial was conducted in Safford, AZ. Ms. Scheuneman was found Not Guilty at trial.

The Wrongly Accused Landlord. State v. Jon M. Spera CR2010-2597 Sedona Municipal Court. Found Not Guilty at Trial. March 25, 2011

Mr. Spera a well educated professional made the mistake of renting his guest house to a tenant without conducting a background check. The tenant proved to be unstable and falsely accused Mr. Spera of Unlawful Imprisonment and Disorderly Conduct. Mr. Spera, having committed no crime refused to plea bargain and secured the services of Mr. Gorman. Following a trial Mr. Spera was found Not Guilty of all charges.

Lawyer Gorman Testifies As Expert Witness at Hearing in U.S. District Court On Claim of Ineffective Assistance of Trial Counsel on A Petition For Issuance of Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Death Row Prisoner.

Arizona prisoner Roger Scott was sentenced to death and is held at Death Row in Florence, Az awaiting execution. Scott filed a petition for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus in U.S. District Court. Scott claimed his trial attorney was ineffective in his representation of Scott at his death penalty sentencing hearing. Scott's than trial attorney a Maricopa County Public Defender called no witnesses at Scott's capital sentencing proceeding and Scott was sentenced to death. The U.S. District Court denied Scott a hearing on his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. However, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, San Francisco, CA reversed the District Court's ruling and ordered an evidentiary hearing on Scott's claim that he was denied his 6th Amendment right to counsel under the U.S. Constitution. See Scott v. Schioro, 567 F. 3d 573 (9th Cir. 2009) attached. Lawyer Gorman was called as an expert witness to offer his expert opinion on whether Scott's trial counsel was minimally competent or incompetent under the 6th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Lawyer Gorman was recognized as an expert by the U.S. District Court at the evidentiary hearing and offered his opinion. Lawyer Gorman testified that Scott's Maricopa County Public Defender was ineffective for failure to present mitigating evidence of Scott's mental deficiencies at his capital sentencing hearing and for his failure to independently investigate and present proof of the fact/s that Scott had suffered traumatic brain injuries, was in a bicycle accident with a car, two motorcycle accidents, a car accident all of which rendered him unconscious. Additionally Lawyer Gorman testified that Scott's public defender's failure to present evidence that the State had offered Scott a plea agreement of 2nd degree murder and that the victim's father had recommended leniency for Scott was below the prevailing professional standard. Lawyer Gorman further testified that because Scott's public defender had a duty to investigate and present all reasonable mitigating evidence and his performance was not reasonable "under prevailing professional norms" See Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510, 521 (2003). The U.S. District Court denied Scott's claim. (see attached order of U.S. District Court). Scott's very capable and dedicated capital habeas counsel have filed an appeal of the District Court's order with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, San Francisco, CA. Case is pending.

Petition for the Issuance of Writ of Habeas Corpus granted by 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, San Francisco, CA.

9th Circuit Court of Appeals reverses District Court judge and orders State of Arizona to release lawyer Gorman's client from prison unless it provides him with a second appeal and a lawyer.

Lawyer Gorman received a letter from Mikal Rasul, a black Muslim who was incarcerated Arizona Department of Corrections serving a 21 year sentence. Mr. Rasul had already served 7 (seven) years in prison of his 21. Mr. Rasul explained that he had been tried and convicted in Pima County Superior Court. Mr. Rasul stated the Pima County Superior Court judge refused to appoint him a conflict free trial lawyer. Mr. Rasul went on to explain that the trial was held without him being present, he was held in the county jail while his trial was conducted. At Mr. Rasul's trial the jury saw an empty table and no defendant. Mr. Rasul had no defense or defense attorney he could trust. Mr. Rasul was brought before the judge for sentencing, still without a lawyer of his choice and sentenced to 21 years in prison. Mr. Rasul from prison, requested, as was his right an appointed lawyer to assist him on his an appeal to the Arizona Court of Appeals. The Arizona Court of Appeals refused to provide him with appointed counsel on his appeal. As a consequence he had no appeal since he was incapable of doing it himself.

Lawyer Gorman agreed to take the case to federal court. Lawyer Gorman filed a Petition for the Issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus in United States District Court for the District of Arizona. The District Court Judge denied the Petition. Lawyer Gorman appealed the District Court's denial to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco CA. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with lawyer Gorman and reversed the District Court Judge. The Writ of Habeas Corpus was granted and the State of Arizona was ordered to release Mr. Rasul from the Arizona Department of Corrections unless Mr. Rasul's direct appeal was initiated within 90 days AND the State of Arizona appointed appellate counsel for Mr. Rasul to assist him on his appeal. (9th Circuit Order. Also see District Court Order.) See Mikal Omar Rasul, Petitioner v. Janet Napolitano; Terry L. Stewart, Director; David Cluff, Respondents, 9th Circuit Court of Appeals No. 2004-15937, D.C. No. CV-01 -001 129-DCB.

Off Death Row - Direct Appeal to Arizona Supreme Court. August 9, 2010, Gary Wayne Snelling.

On June 10, 2008 Gary Wayne Snelling was sentenced to death in Maricopa County Superior court, Phoenix, AZ. Following his sentence of death Mr. Snelling sought a lawyer for his appeal to the Arizona Supreme Court. Lawyer Gorman agreed to represent Mr. Snelling on a pro bono basis and challenge his sentence of death. Lawyer Gorman argued to the Arizona Supreme Court that Mr. Snelling's sentence of death was unconstitutional because his sentence of death was secured by prosecutorial misconduct. Lawyer Gorman also argued that there was insufficient evidence of an aggravating factor. See Opening Brief and Reply Brief and Supplemental Citations Brief. Lawyer Gorman appeared before the Arizona Supreme Court on Jun 29, 2010 and argued Mr. Snelling's case to the Arizona Supreme Court. Following oral argument the Arizona Supreme Court published its decision on August 9, 2010 and reversed Mr. Snelling's death sentence. State v. Snelling, CR-08-0164-AP Ariz. (8-9-2010)

Off Death Row - Rule 32 Petition For Post-Conviction Relief Cochise County Superior Court, Bisbee, Arizona. Kyle D. Sharp death sentence reversed July 29, 2010.

Kyle D. Sharp a resident of Tipton, Indiana, found himself in an Arizona jail cell in July of 1995 charged with capital murder. Mr. Sharp had no funds to secure a lawyer. Mr. Sharp was appointed a public defender. The Cochise county Legal Defender, James White, was appointed to defend Mr. Sharp. Although Mr. Sharp was facing the death penalty, no defense was presented by his public defender at the capital sentencing proceedings. Mr. Sharp was sentenced to death by a Cochise County superior Court judge on April 7, 1997. An appeal to the Arizona Supreme Court followed. The Arizona Supreme Court affirmed the trial judge's sentence of death (State v. Sharp 193 Ariz. 414, 1999). Mr. Sharp's only remaining option was to file a Rule 32 Petition for Post Conviction Relief. Lawyer Gorman agreed to represent Mr. Sharp on a pro bono basis in 1999. Lawyer Gorman filed a Petition for Post Conviction Relief arguing that Mr. Sharp was sentenced to death as a result of the incompetence of his public defender, the Cochise County Legal Defender James White. The Rule 32 proceeding has taken more than 10 (ten) years. After more than 10 (ten) years of investigation, litigation and legal argument Mr. Sharp's sentence of death was reversed. On July 29, 2010, the Honorable Wallace Hoggatt granted Mr. Gorman's Rule 32 petition and ruled that Mr. Sharp had been denied his 6ht Amendment Right to Counsel, that his public defender was incompetent and reversed Mr. Sharp's sentence of death. See decision.

Federal District Court Judge Grants Lawyer Gorman's Petition For A Writ of Habeas Corpus.

Robert Paige was illegally convicted and sentenced to prison in Yavapai County Superior Court. Paige lost his appeal before the Arizona Court of Appeals and the Arizona Supreme Court. Lawyer Gorman was retained by Robert Paige's family to pursue his case in United States District Court.

Lawyer Gorman filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus in United States District Court.(see attached). The United States District Court Magistrate recommended granting Lawyer Gorman's Petition For Writ of Habeas Corpus.(see attached). The Honorable Earl Carroll, United States District Court judge granted the Petition For Writ of Habeas Corpus.(see attached).

Lawyer Gorman Defends Death Row Inmate Who Was Denied Competent Counsel At His Penalty Trial

Kyle Sharp was arrested and charged with capital murder in 1995. Appointed to defend Sharp were two Cochise County Public Defenders. At Sharp's death penalty sentencing hearing, the two public defenders were unprepared and called no witnesses on Sharp's behalf. With no defense presented by his public defenders Sharp was sentenced to death by a Cochise County Superior Court Judge. Sharp's sentence of death was affirmed by the Arizona Supreme Court in 1999, see State v. Sharp 193 AZ 414(1999). Lawyer Gorman agreed to take the case at a pro bono in 2000 and met Sharp when he was on Death Row awaiting his execution. Lawyer Gorman has defended Sharp for almost ten years and argued Sharp was illegally sentenced to death because he was denied his 6th Amendment Right to counsel because his two court-appointed public defenders did nothing to defend him.

On February 10, 2009 the Court ruled for Sharp and agreed with Lawyer Gorman that Sharp's two public defenders "performance fell below prevailing professional norms and their performance was deficient as a matter of law."

See attached decision of the Honorable Wallace R. Hoggatt. (Sharp Decision & Order)

Miranda WarningsCalifornia Supreme Court

Police illegally obtain lawyer Gorman's client's statement. State denied use of defendant's statement at trial. Court of Appeals agrees with lawyer Gorman's argument and affirms trial court's decision.

Lawyer Gorman represented Defendant/Appellee Marco Antonio Carrasco‑Calderon before the Arizona Court of Appeals in State v. Marco Antonio Carrasco‑Calderon, 1 CA‑CR 07‑1082. The Court of Appeals accepted Lawyer Gorman's argument that the Miranda Warnings given to the Spanish speaking Carrasco‑Calderon were confusing, ambiguous and ineffective and affirmed the trial court's order suppressing Carrasco‑Calderon's statements to law enforcement officials. See the Court of Appeals unpublished memorandum decision .

Entrapment ‑ Sale of Marijuana

Jury finds police entrapped Gorman's client, jury renders not guilty verdict on all charges.

Jeffrey Buchan was charged with sale of marijuana. He had unwittingly sold marijuana to a police officer who was working undercover. Attorney Gorman agreed to take the case and admitted to the jury that Jeffrey had sold the marijuana to the police officer. However, Attorney Gorman went on to explain to the jury that the police had entrapped Jeffery and that they should return a verdict of not guilty. The jury agreed and found Jeffery not guilty. State v. Jeffrey Robert Buchan, CR 1987‑007934, CR 1987‑007933.

Marijuana Cultivation - The Right To Be Left Alone

Felony drug charges against lawyer Gorman's client dismissed, search warrant invalid, illegal search and seizure.

Victoria Bell was on probation when she was charged with two felony counts involving the Production of Marijuana and Peyote. Local law enforcement had entered Ms. Bell's rural property with a Search Warrant and seized the large quantity of marijuana and peyote plants in her rural garden. Ms. Bell retained lawyer Gorman. The prosecuting attorney agreed to dismiss both felony charges after lawyer Gorman explained how the local law enforcement had violated the 4th Amendment to the United States Constitution in securing the search warrant. State v. Victoria Bell, CR20060130FE.

Jury Misconduct - Murder case - The Wrongly Convicted Marine

Murder conviction of lawyer Gorman's client reversed in post-conviction proceedings. Lawyer Gorman's client awarded new trial.

David Kiehle was a decorated career Marine with no criminal history. He was charged with first degree murder relating to the death of his wife. Mr. Kiehle maintained his innocence and claimed his wife committed suicide. Mr. Kiehle was tried and convicted and sentenced to natural life with no possibility of parole. Mr. Kiehle's parents contacted Attorney Gorman and told him the history of the case. Attorney Gorman agreed to take the case. After conducting an investigation Attorney Gorman filed a petition for post conviction relief (Rule 32) arguing that Mr. Kiehle was denied a fair trial because of jury misconduct. After several years of post-conviction proceedings an additional appeal and an evidentiary hearing Mr. Kiehle's first degree murder conviction and sentence of natural life were reversed and he was granted a new trial. State v. David W. Kiehle, CR 99‑091679. See Court of Appeals Decision. See trial court's decision reversing Kiehle's conviction and awarding him a new trial.

The Right To Possess Fire Arms Case

Lawyer Gorman's client found not guilty of fire arms charges.

Carlos Ramos was exercising his constitutional right to possess fire arms. He was charged with fire arms violations. Lawyer Gorman represented both Mr. Ramos in at trial. Mr. Ramos was found not guilty. He kept his firearms. State v. Ramos, CR2005-2152.

Pre-charging

Illinois Supreme Court All charges against lawyer Gorman's client dropped.

Lawyer Gorman was contacted by a distraught father. He told lawyer Gorman that the local police had taken his son out of his high school class room, arrested him and incarcerated him in the local adult jail facility. The police told him his son had "exploded a bomb" on school grounds. Lawyer Gorman immediately went to the jail and met the young man and then arranged for a judge to hear the case. After arguments to the judge the young man was released from jail. Over the next month Attorney Gorman interviewed school staff and other witnesses and presented his findings to the Yavapai County attorney's office and the Sedona City attorney's office. Both offices declined to press any charges. The young man will attend a private college in the fall on partial scholarship.

The Innocent Immigrant

Judge grants lawyer Gorman's motion to dismiss multiple 1st Degree Murder charges with prejudice.

Arturo Sesma was the youngest of 6 siblings who had all immigrated to the United States from Mexico. Arturo was married to a U.S. citizen and had an infant child. Arturo was caught in the middle of a shoot out in an apartment parking lot between two other individuals. Two people were shot and killed one a 6 year old child. The state mistakenly charged Arturo with multiple counts of 1st degree murder alleging he had acted as an accomplice. Arturo was held in the local jail. Lawyer Gorman was contacted by Arturo's entire family (they barely fit in his office). That night Lawyer Gorman went to the apartment complex where the shooting occurred with his investigator and knocked on every door until he found a witness who saw what actually happened, a witness who supported Arturo's claim of innocence. Lawyer Gorman then secured Arturo's release from the county jail while he awaited his jury trial. After 3 years of investigation and litigation lawyer Gorman and Arturo appeared for the jury trial. Pretrial legal pleadings were filed and arguments were made to the judge. The judge agreed with lawyer Gorman and dismissed all counts of 1st degree murder with prejudice. Arturo is presently working and raising his family in Arizona. State v. Arturo Sesma, CR 1999‑009337.

Entrapment - White Collar Crime - Money Laundering

Judge finds police entrapped lawyer Gorman's client. Judge grants lawyer Gorman's motion to dismiss, all charges dismissed with prejudice.

Lawrence S. Heninger was in his 60s, a card carrying conservative Republican and had never been arrested or accused of any crime. Heninger worked and lived in Palm Springs, CA. He was a licensed car, plane and RV dealer. Heninger was contacted by a government operative named Richard Stein. Stein was a career criminal who decided it would be easier to work for the Mesa Police Department and take a percentage of any property seized as part of a law enforcement bust. Stein phoned Heninger and told him he wanted to buy a plane from him and talked him into flying to Mesa, AZ with the plane to complete the transaction. Heninger thought it was a legitimate deal. When Heninger arrived in Mesa, undercover police officer's offered Heninger an inflated sum for the plane to make the offer hard to refuse. Heninger agreed to the offered price. Then immediately before completing the transaction the undercover police said "Oh by the way we are drug dealers" Heninger (on tape it was recorded) attempted to back out of the deal but eventually went through with the transaction. The undercover police than immediately arrested him and threw him in the local jail. Lawyer Gorman was retained and conducted an investigation into the sleazy background of Richard Stein and the illegal practices of the Mesa Police Department. Lawyer Gorman argued to the trial judge that the case should be dismissed with prejudice because Heninger was entrapped. The judge agreed and dismissed the charge/s with prejudice. State v. Lawrence S. Heninger, CR 1992‑090608.

Domestic Violence

Prosecuting attorney agrees to dismiss all charges against lawyer Gorman's client.

A young female NAU student was charged with domestic violence against her former boy friend. Lawyer Gorman was retained and upon completion of investigation and negotiation with the prosecuting attorney an agreement to dismiss all charges was reached. State v. Gaylord CR2008-1696

Child Molest - The Carlucci Family Secret

Jury finds lawyer Gorman's client not guilty of all child molest charges.

Lou Lovett had not seen his natural daughter Rebecca for 15 years. He had divorced her mother, left Ohio and moved to Arizona. He was contacted by his ex‑wife who sought to arrange a reunion. After Rebecca visited her father in Arizona she told him she had repeatedly been sexually molested by her stepfather Antonio Carlucci. Lou did not let his daughter return to Ohio until he was assured she would have no contact with her stepfather. He threatened to report his ex‑wife and Carlucci to the Ohio police. His mistake was to let his daughter return to Ohio. Once in the control of her mother Lou was accused and charged with multiple counts of child molestation. He faced hundreds of years in prison. Lawyer Gorman took the case and argued to the jury that Rebecca had been molested, it was the "Carlucci family secret" and the motivation for the false accusation against Lou. The jury agreed and found Lou not guilty of all charges. State v. Lou Lovett, CR 1989‑000951.

The Bail Rape Case

Jury finds lawyer Gorman's client not guilty of rape charges.

Edward Maxwell was rumored to be an informant for law enforcement. He was accused of rape by a woman who had put her house up as collateral to bail her boyfriend out of jail. Her boyfriend was arrested on a drug bust while out on bail. She believed Maxwell had informed on her boyfriend. Attorney Gorman argued to the jury that her allegations were false. That her motive to falsely accuse Maxwell of rape was for revenge, his informing on her boyfriend. She thought Maxwell had informed on her boyfriend and her boyfriend's arrest would lead to his bail being revoked and her losing her house. The jury agreed with Attorney Gorman and found Maxwell not guilty of all charges. State v. Edward Steven Maxwell, CR1990‑003331.

Child Molestation - The Drug Addict Accuser Case

Jury finds lawyer Gorman's client not guilty of 18 counts/charges of child molest.

Elderly Louis Golden agreed to baby sit the two children of one of his neighbor's. Unknown to Louis the women was a drug addict. She ended up accusing Louis of molesting her two sons. Louis was charged with 18 counts of child molest. Attorney Gorman argued to the jury that there was no credible evidence presented to convict and the testimony called for an acquittal since the two boys were under cross‑examination and the mother admitted on cross‑examination to being under the influence of drugs. The jury agreed with Attorney Gorman and found Louis not guilty of all charges. State v. Louis Golden.

The Denial of Counsel 6th Case

Wisconsin Supreme Court 9th Circuit Court of Appeals reverses District Court judge and orders State of Arizona to release lawyer Gorman's client from prison unless it provides him with a second appeal and a lawyer.

Appeal ‑ Petition For Issuance of Writ of Habeas Corpus. Lawyer Gorman received a letter from Mikal Rasul, a black Muslim who was incarcerated in an Arizona Prison. Rasul had been in prison for seven years. Rasul asked for lawyer Gorman's help. Rasul explained that he had been tried and convicted in Pima County Superior Court. Rasul went on to explain he was not present at his trial but was held in the county jail while his trial was conducted in his absence. Rasul explained that the trial judge refused to provide him with a lawyer. All the jury saw at Rasul's trial was an empty table, he had no defense or defense attorney. Rasul went on to explain that he was brought before the judge for sentencing, still without a lawyer and sentenced to 21.25 years in prison. Rasul than attempted an appeal from prison and requested as was his right an appointed lawyer to assist him. The Arizona Court of Appeals refused to provide him with appointed counsel on his appeal. As a consequence he had no appeal since he was incapable of doing it himself. Lawyer Gorman agreed to take the case and filed a Petition for the Issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus in United States District Court in Tucson, Arizona. The District Court Judge dismissed lawyer Gorman's Petition. Lawyer Gorman appealed the District Court's opinion to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco CA. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with lawyer Gorman and reversed the District Court Judge. The Writ of Habeas Corpus was granted and the State of Arizona was ordered to release Rasul from custody unless Rasul's direct appeal was initiated within 90 days AND the State of Arizona appointed appellate counsel for Rasul to assist him on his appeal. See Mikal Omar Rasul, Petitioner v. Janet Napolitano; Terry L. Stewart, Director; David Cluff, Respondents, 9th Circuit Court of Appeals No. 2004‑15937, D.C. No. CV‑01‑001129‑DCB.

Death Penalty Appeal - Jury Misconduct

Lawyer Gorman's client off death row. Murder conviction and death sentence reversed on appeal by the Arizona Supreme Court. Gorman's client awarded new trial.

Henry Hall was already on death row awaiting his execution when Lawyer Gorman agreed to take his case. Lawyer Gorman filed an appeal with the Arizona Supreme Court and argued Hall's 6th Amendment right to a fair and impartial jury was violated. Lawyer Gorman argued that Hall's murder conviction and sentence of death should be reversed because the jury was tainted by the actions of the trial court's bailiff. The Arizona Supreme Court agreed. Hall's murder conviction and sentence of death were reversed. Hall is no longer on death row, he is presently awaiting his retrial. State v. Hall, 204 Ariz. 442 (2003).

Death Penalty Appeal - Jury Misconduct

Lawyer Gorman's client off death row, sentence of death reversed by the Arizona Supreme Court. Cropper awarded a re-sentencing.

Cropper was already on death row awaiting his execution when Lawyer Gorman agreed to take his case. Lawyer Gorman filed an appeal with the Arizona Supreme Court and argued Cropper was illegally sentenced to death, that his 6th Amendment right to a fair and impartial jury was violated. The Arizona Supreme Court agreed and reversed Cropper's sentence of death and ordered a re-sentencing. State v. Cropper, 206 Ariz. 153 (2003); State v. Cropper, 205 Ariz. 181 (2003).

Death Penalty Trial

Jury finds lawyer Gorman's client not guilty of capital murder.

Roger Raymond Gonzales was accused of capital murder. The State was seeking a death sentence. Lawyer Gorman agreed to take the case and began in extensive investigation. At trial the State argued Mr. Gonzales committed a contract murder. Attorney Gorman through cross‑examination of the State's witness's demonstrated that each State witness was either unreliable because of drug addiction or had a motive to lie (committed the murder themselves etc). The jury agreed with Lawyer Gorman and found Roger Gonzales not guilty of 1st degree murder. State v. Roger Raymond Gonzales, CR 1991‑91184.

Death Penalty Pre-Trial Proceedings - The Dead Man Walking Case

Lawyer Gorman prevents State from seeking death sentence.

Lawyer Gorman agreed to defend 23 year old prison inmate Nicolas Sizemore who was facing a death prosecution. Mr. Sizemore was already serving a 30 year prison sentence when he and two other white supremacists were video taped in the prison yard stabbing to death the leader of the Mexican prison gang. A conviction and death sentence seemed guaranteed in light of Sizemore's criminal record and the evidence. In the pre trial proceedings Lawyer Gorman employed an unheard of legal tactic that caught the Arizona Attorney Generals Office flat footed resulting in the State being legally barred from seeking the death penalty. It was successfully litigated from Navajo County Superior Court to the Arizona Supreme Court. State v. Nicholas Sizemore, CR 2001‑0338. Also see New York Times September 16, 2002 article on the Sizemore case, "A Supreme Court Ruling Roils Death Penalty Case."

The Battered Women Defense

All charges against lawyer Gorman's innocent client dismissed.

Norma Lopez was a Mexican National who spoke no English, worked in the fields of Arizona all day picking produce and at night cared for her five children and suffered systematic and daily abuse at the hands of her alcoholic husband. Norma's husband would regularly beat her, bring home other women in front of her and was intoxicated on a daily and nightly basis. Norma's husband Meltiton Lopez was charged with multiple counts of child abuse for sexually assaulting the Lopez's 14 year old daughter. The State in it's misguided zeal also charged Norma with multiple counts of child abuse for failing to report her husband. Lawyer Gorman met Norma in the county jail. She was terrified. She had no idea why she was in jail, did not speak English and had no friends or family to help her. Lawyer Gorman agreed to take the case. Norma advised she had no idea her husband was sexually assaulting her daughter. Her daughter never told her and she never witnessed anything. Lawyer Gorman constructed a three prong defense. First, Norma was not guilty because she had no knowledge or reason to know her daughter was being assaulted. Second, Norma was a battered woman and even if she did know she was under her husband's domination and control and unable to assist her daughter. Third culturally, because Norma was a Mexican National she did not view the local police as a resource but as a threat and one to fear. Lawyer Gorman secured the services of a battered women's expert and cultural expert. After extensive litigation all charges were dismissed. State v. Norma Lopez, CR 1988‑000362‑B.

The Right To Possess Fire Arms Case

Lawyer Gorman's client found not guilty of fire arms charges.

Jose Gonzalez was exercising his constitutional right to possess fire arms. He was charged with fire arms violations. Lawyer Gorman represented Mr.Gonzalez at trial. Mr. Gonzalez was found not guilty. He kept his firearms. State v. Jose Gonzalez, CR2005-2120.


Thomas A. Gorman is a trial lawyer & criminal defense attorney who represents clients throughout the state of Arizona for dui, dwi, drunk driving & drug crimes such as possession, distribution & trafficking of cannabis, marijuana, pot, methamphetamine, cocaine & heroin. Also specializing in medicinal & medical marijuana cases, sex crimes, weapons charges, assault & battery, homicide, burglary and theft. Servicing the cities of Sedona, Flagstaff, Prescott, Camp Verde, Scottsdale, Phoenix, Holbrook, Kingman, Tucson and other communities in Navajo County, Coconino County, Yavapai County and Maricopa County Arizona.