New Brunswick Murder Lawyer2020-04-22T14:32:49+00:00

New Brunswick Murder Lawyer

Defending first degree murder, second degree murder, manslaughter, attempted murder

New Brunswick criminal lawyer, Nathan Gorham, regularly defends and wins murder cases (first-degree murder, second-degree murder, manslaughter). For more than 15 years as a partner at the largest criminal defence firm in Canada, Mr. Gorham focused his practice heavily on the defence of murder prosecutions. His strategies and successes in murder cases often attract national news coverage. In one recent murder trial, his cross-examinations were described in the National Post as “devastating” and “very skilled”. As a part-time law professor at the University of New Brunswick, Mr. Gorham teaches a course on defending homicide cases. His writing on murder related principles has been published in academic journals as well as national newspapers. Because of his experience and skill in the defence of these cases, Mr. Gorham often provides expert analysis for national news media on murder cases and murder related topics. In 2019, Mr. Gorham formed the Gorham Vandebeek firm, with his partner Breana Vandebeek, and continues to focus his practice on the defence of murder trials and appeals. With an office in Saint John, Mr. Gorham regularly defends clients in Moncton, Fredericton, Saint John, and Edmundston, New Brunswick.

New Brunswick Criminal Lawyer, Nathan Gorham, speaking to the media following the jury’s verdict of not guilty in a dangerous driving causing death case.

(416) 410-4814  |

New Brunswick Criminal Lawyer, Nathan Gorham, representing a client charged with organized crime.

Recent success in murder cases

New Brunswick Criminal Lawyer, Nathan Gorham regularly defends First-Degree Murder, Second-Degree Murder, and Manslaughter trials. Visit the links below to learn about some of his recent successes. Keep in mind that past success does not guarantee future results. This is because the result depends on the evidence of the case. Even so, the best lawyers have the skill and experience to undermine the prosecution’s evidence and to uncover and present favourable defence evidence. These cases reflect some of Mr. Gorham’s recent experience.

Charges: four counts of first degree murder.

Evidence: The defendant in this case was charged with four counts of first-degree murder, in an apparent random shooting. Police investigation revealed evidence that suggested the defendant suffered from delusions. The defence applied for a trial concerning the defendant’s fitness, which refers to the a person’s capacity to fairly participate in the defence. Two doctors offered evidence, one defence and one prosecution doctor. Both doctors agree that the defendant suffered from very serious delusions that undermined his ability to instruct his lawyer.

Result: the jury found the defendant unfit.

Charge: Second-degree murder.

Facts: the defendant was charged with second degree murder following a stabbing in a rooming house. The prosecution tendered evidence from the deceased’s friends, who testified that the defendant often attacked and threatened people in the rooming house with knives. The defence was able to undermine their evidence through cross-examination and argued that the defendant was acting in lawful self-defence. Mr. Gorham also contended that the police investigation was inadequate. He presented evidence tying the deceased to a knife that was found near to the scene of the stabbing–evidence that the police investigation had failed to identify.

Result: the jury found the defendant “not guilty” of second-degree murder.

Charge: The defendant in this case was charged with Dangerous Driving Causing death, an offence that is similar to manslaughter and often carries similar penalties.

Facts: the prosecution alleged that the defendant chased the deceased in his truck over the course of 20 kilometres through back roads. According to its theory, the chase terrified the victim, who lost control of her car and crashed, causing her death. The prosecution relied on principally of two witnesses who claimed that the accused was chasing the deceased at high speeds (approximately 150km/hr) and only a few car lengths behind. The defendant always maintained his factual innocence. He denied that he chased the deceased or drove at the excess speeds alleged by the prosecution.

Result: the jury found the accused “not guilty”.

Charge: The defendant in this case was convicted of second-degree murder.

Evidence: the prosecution alleged that the defendant planned a drug robbery and then drove two of his friends to the location of the robbery. When the deceased attempted to flee, according to the prosecution, the defendant shot him in the heart, killing him instantly. The defendant maintained that he was not part of the robbery, much less the shooting. He testified that he was actually a long distance away, in another part of the city; although, he admitted that he allowed the perpetrators to use his car.

Result: The Ontario Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial. The defendant was subsequently found “not guilty” of second degree after he plead “not contest” to manslaughter, acknowledging his responsibility for loaning the car to the perpetrators.

Charge: second-degree murder.

Evidence: the prosecution alleged that the defendant punched his wife in the head, causing an internal head injury that eventually led to her death. The defendant took the position that he did not commit murder. Following the preliminary inquiry, the defendant was discharged of second-degree murder. He subsequently pleaded guilty to aggravated assault and received probation.

The defendant was charged with second-degree murder for his role in the death of a two year old child. The prosecution alleged that he punched the child in the stomach, causing internal injuries. It relied on the evidence of the child’s mother, a well regarding forensic psychiatrist, and a jail house informant. Mr. Gorham was able to undermine the evidence of each of these witnesses. During the trial, the prosecution agreed to accept a plea to manslaughter and the second-degree charge was dismissed.

(416) 410-4814  |