|
Thomas Gorman Contributions
State v. Sharp, 193. Ariz. 414 (1999)
In STATE
v. SHARP, Sharp's trial counsel called no fact witnesses at his capital sentencing and failed to mark and move for admission of a single exhibit.
Below is select portions from Sharp's post-conviction evidentiary hearing on this issue. |
|
Standard of Care Attached is Mitigation Specialist Mary Durand's testimony as to the prevailing professional standard of care in the state of Arizona in the 1980's through the 90's for mitigation investigation in a capital case. |
|
Prejudice. Attached is Sharp's PCR Mitigation Specialist Keith Rohman's testimony from Sharp's post conviction evidentiary hearing. Relief in these cases is driven by prejudice. Post conviction counsel was attempting to demonstrate prejudice with Mr. Rohman's testimony as well as explain the role of a mitigation specialist and how to do a mitigation investigation. Keith Rohman explains the process of mitigation investigation, his credentials, the skills required of a mitigation specialist that most attorneys do not possess. He also describes all of the mitigation that was found which was present and available at the time of Sharp's original capital sentencing. Keith Rohman Transcripts |
|
Cross-examination of Trial Counsel My cross examination of Sharp's trial counsel from his post-conviction evidentiary hearing on the issue of failing to investigate, develop and present mitigation AND the failure to secure a mitigation specialist as part of a capital defense team.
Cross-examination of Trial Counsel Transcript
Thomas A. Gorman LawyerGorman@aol.com |
| Return to Litigation Guides |