All posts by BenchMark Website Design

How The Passage of Prop 64 Can Help You

December 8, 2016

With the passage of Proposition 64 (officially the “Control, Regulate and Tax Adult Use of Marijuana Act,” also commonly known as the “Adult Use of Marijuana Act,”) on November 8, 2016, certain marijuana-related activities, which were previously crimes, were decriminalized.  Further, other crimes which were previously classified as felonies can potentially be reduced to misdemeanors. Not only did Prop 64 affect the way marijuana offenses will be treated moving forward, a provision within the bill allows for some defendants who were previously convicted to have their convictions retroactively reduced to misdemeanors, or, in some cases, entirely dismissed.

As the voters of the state recognized the medicinal benefits of marijuana, Prop 64 effectively decriminalizes personal-type possession and cultivation of marijuana for those 21 years old, or older.  Now, those over 21 can (1) possess, process, transport, purchase, obtain or give away up to 28.5 grams of marijuana or 8 grams of concentrated cannabis, (2) possess, plant, cultivate, harvest, dry, or process not more than 6 living marijuana plants and products produced by the plants at either their private residence or grounds, in a locked place, and not open to public view, (3) smoke or ingest marijuana and marijuana products, and (4) possess, transport, purchase, obtain, use, manufacture or give away without compensation to persons 21 years or older, any marijuana accessories.

The types of crimes which may be reclassified from felonies to misdemeanors are violations of Health and Safety Code sections 11357, 11358, 11359, 11360, simple possession of marijuana, cultivation of marijuana, possession of marijuana for sale, and sales/transportation of marijuana, respectively.   Relief is available to anyone who has suffered a conviction of those crimes, whether they are currently in custody, on probation/parole, or have completed their sentence.  It is important to keep in mind, however, that relief may not be available (1) to those with a prior “super strike” on their record, or those required to register as a sex offender under Penal Code section 290, (2) where the crime involved a minor as a participant, target or victim, or involved interstate transportation or importation, or (3) if the court feels the defendant poses “an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety.”[1]

The dismissals and reclassifications are not automatic; you must petition the court for relief.  If you feel that you might qualify for relief, an experienced lawyer can help you file a petition to either have your conviction dismissed, or have your offense reclassified.  We at the Li & Lozada Law Group have already filed such petitions on behalf of our clients, and have obtained positive outcomes for our clients.  If you’d like to see if we can help you, give Devina Douglas a call at (707) 321-5287.


[1] The type of factors which are considered in assessing a person’s danger to public safety include: “The petitioner’s criminal conviction history, including the type of crimes committed, the extent of injury to victims, the length of prior prison commitments, and the remoteness of the crimes; (2) The petitioner’s disciplinary record and record of rehabilitation while incarcerated; (3) Any other evidence the court, within its discretion, determines to be relevant to deciding whether a new sentence would result in an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety.”  Penal Code section 1170.18(b).

Posted by BenchMark Website Design at 1:03 am

California’s new take on Civil Forfeiture Laws

October 12, 2016

About this time last year, we reported that, via the use of of Senate Bill 443, California legislators attempted to change the state’s civil forfeiture laws, however the Bill failed to pass in the Senate.

We are pleased to announce, however, that a similar Bill introduced this year  just passed.

Starting in 2017, law enforcement agencies will no longer be permitted to retain money and personal belongings seized from arrestees simply because law enforcement believed  that money or property was used in connection to or through a criminal enterprise. Now, the government must “obtain a criminal conviction for the unlawful manufacture or cultivation of any controlled substance or its precursors prior to an entry of judgment for recovery of expenses of seizing,  eradicating, destroying, or taking remedial action with respect to any controlled substance.” This change in law effects arrestees who had cash or property seized that was valued at between $25,000 and $40,000.

Further, the Bill raises the bar regarding the standard of proof needed for the government to declare the assets forfeited.  Prior to this law being enacted, the government only needed to prove the items were connected to a criminal activity by clear and convincing evidence. Now, however, the government must prove this connection beyond a reasonable doubt.

If you’ve had evidence seized as a result of a drug-related arrest, and are interested in trying to have that property returned to you, an experienced lawyer, such as those at the Li & Lozada Law Group, can help.

Posted by BenchMark Website Design at 7:23 pm

The CAD Program: No Jail and No Criminal Charges

September 15, 2016

California courts have recognized that slapping a guilty verdict and giving out a punishment is not necessarily the most efficient way to try and keep criminals from continuing to break the law. Not everyone will respond to that particular method.

The CAD program, which stands for Community Accountability Diversion, is an alternative to traditional court proceedings. The CAD program is specific for misdemeanor charges as well as felony charges regarding narcotics. The Diversion can be done both pre-filing and post-filing but the Diversion must be accepted prior to any trial dates.

CAD’s method is primarily focused on rehabilitating the defendant rather than imposing a strict punishment such as jail or prison. The CAD program looks to educate defendants in various aspects of life and give the participants exposure to the various community resources that can assist them. These are community resources for employment, education, treatment and mental health. Once the individual can show completion of the CAD program, the criminal charges will be dismissed.

Because the CAD program will prevent an individual from going to jail and from having a criminal record, the requirements are strict and often individuals will not be eligible for the program. Some examples that would make one ineligible for the CAD program include: an individual that has been convicted of a felony or misdemeanor within five years of the official complaint, the defendant has other pending cases, as well as if the defendant has failed to appear on previous cases. Further, if the individual has previously been on parole or probation, they will not be eligible for the CAD program. Moreover, there are particular crimes that will prevent an individual from entering the Diversion program. These include but are not limited to: gang related crimes, physical abuse or neglect to minors, domestic violence and charges that involve abuse or neglect to an animal.

In order to stay in the program long enough to get the criminal charges dismissed, CAD does have some strict requirements. In addition to mandatory random drug testing, the individual must contact the diversion program within 48 hours of being referred to the program.

The individual must attend a diversion plan conference prior to entering the program. The program requires a $40 enrollment fee. Once in the program, there will be a customized diversion plan set up that is specific to each participant. The individual diversion plan will contain various conditions that must be met in order to successfully complete the program. Some of the conditions include lots of work throughout the community, individual and group activities.

The CAD program is a total of 6 months beginning immediately upon the day of enrollment. However, upon completion, the actual criminal case will remain open for another 12 months. After a total of 18 months, the criminal case will be dismissed as long as the individual was not arrested in that time.

Every person who is involved in the CAD Diversion program is expected to maintain satisfactory performance and follow their customized plan. If the program staff feels that one is not meeting the standards, the Diversion shall be terminated and sent back to the court for reevaluation. Further, while in the program, if a participant picks up another charge, their Diversion will immediately be terminated.

As with most crimes, there is a deal to be made with the district attorney, and therefore some discretion. As a result, if the Chief Deputy District Attorney that is overseeing misdemeanors approves the CAD Diversion program, the People can stipulate for the eligibility of an individual to participate in the CAD program even for ineligible offenses.


Posted by BenchMark Website Design at 9:04 pm

Federal Raids on California Cannabis Collectives

April 17, 2016

In 1996, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the legalization of medical marijuana in California did not protect users or distributors from federal prosecution. Since then, medical marijuana dispensaries, cardholders, and cultivators have consistently dealt with raids and federal crimes charges.

Throughout the years, communities and supporters of medical marijuana in California have stood their ground on numerous occasions. One of the most prominent events was the defiant approach of Santa Cruz, CA. On September 17, 2002, Santa Cruz mayor Christopher Krohn took a stand along with several City Council members and former mayors to show support for a medical marijuana giveaway. This event was in protest of a federal raid by the Drug Enforcement Agency (D.E.A.) on a local cannabis collective.

For residents who support medical marijuana, this was a violation of their rights and inhibits the collective’s ability to provide needed medicine for cardholders. Due to this event being a challenge to the federally run D.E.A., the mayor was not sure if he would actually be arrested himself, even though he wasn’t handling the drug.

While there are multiple states that have legalized medical marijuana and multiple raids that have happened because of it, this particular raid inspired an emotional reaction. The collective that was targeted was the Wo/Men’s Alliance for Medical Marijuana (WAMM) farm owned by Michael and Valerie Corral, two residents who fought for the 1996 medical marijuana initiative in California. It was in response to this raid that countless members of WAMM came out to support the protest, many of which had life-threatening and debilitating illnesses including multiple sclerosis, AIDS, and cancer, as well as Santa Cruz residents.  Due to fear of harassment from the federal government, the couple then went in to hiding after the raid.

The D.E.A. claimed a multitude of reasons for the raid on the Corral’s farm including claiming growers and distributors are simply “fattening their pocketbooks under the disguise of medicine.” The Corral’s vehemently denied this claim saying they “live off the land” and are “here to help dying people.”

The marijuana debate continues to make headlines and alter legislation across the country, but although California was a progressive on the issue, it is lagging behind states like Colorado, Alaska, Washington, and Oregon for legalizing recreational use. Legalization does appear to be moving forward still and possibly making a federal impact with the D.E.A. making a decision in 2016 on whether marijuana should be rescheduled.

Posted by BenchMark Website Design at 7:57 pm

What you need to know about DUI law: The Traffic Stop

March 8, 2016

It’s late at night. You’re driving home from a friend’s house after having a few drinks. And those dreaded red lights flip on behind you.  As you pull over to the side of the road, you hope the police car will swerve around you, off to stop a real “bad guy.” But instead of passing you, the car pulls to a stop behind you.  So what do you need to know?

Anywhere in the United States, under the Fourth Amendment, law enforcement officers need probable cause to stop you.  This probable cause can be anything that would lead a reasonable person to believe that you, as the driver, has committed a crime.  While some people think that the officer needs to have seen you swerve, run through a stop sign or stop light, or hit an object, the truth is that even simple traffic infractions such as speeding, having a taillight out, not having a front license plate, or failing to wear your seatbelt are enough.

Once stopped, the officer is free to approach you and your car to investigate.  One of the telltale signs a driver has been drinking, and one of the first observations an officer usually makes in DUI cases, is that an odor of alcohol permeates the car.  Should an officer smell alcohol, you can bet he’s going to start asking questions to see if he’s just pulled over another DUI driver.  It’s at this point when even benign facts start working against you.  While you may rightfully claim that you smell like alcohol because you did drink earlier, or that a friend spilled a drink on you, the officer will worry it’s because the smell is emanating from your breath ad you’re still intoxicated to the level you might be impaired.  While you may rightfully claim that your eyes are bloodshot because you’re tired, the officer is worried that you have so much alcohol in your system that the alcohol is causing small blood vessels in your eye to become dilated and inflamed.   While you may rightfully claim that you’re having trouble communicating clearly is because English is not your native language, the officer is worried you’re so intoxicated your speech is slurred.

Chances are, the next thing the officer is going to do is start asking you questions.  It’s important to keep in mind that you have the right to remain silent. As defense attorneys, we cannot underscore this enough.  But should you feel compelled to speak with the officer, keep in mind that anything you say can and will be used against you.  Some of the routine questions are these:

  • Have you been drinking tonight?
  • When did you have your last drink?
  • When did you last sleep?
  • Are you on any medications right now?

If, after asking you these questions, whether you answered or not, the officer still believes you may have been driving under the influence, you’re going to be asked to take a series of field sobriety tests (FSTs).  Most of the FSTs are designed to test your ability to multitask at a very basic level.  You’re asked to perform a mental activity—such as counting—with a physical activity—such as maintaining your balance. Another test you’ll almost certainly be given is the “horizontal gaze nystagmus” test, in which the officer will ask you to follow an object—typically his pen—with your eyes while keeping your head still.  What he’s looking for is whether, and where, your eyes begin to involuntarily jerk.  This jerking, called nystagmus, is an involuntary reaction that occurs when alcohol depresses the central nervous system. If this jerking begins before the gaze reaches approximately a 45-degree angle-from-center, it indicates a possible blood alcohol content level over .05%.

The last of the FSTs is the breathalyzer test, in which the officer asks you to blow into a device, which measures the alcohol content from the air deep within your lungs.  It is important to note that YOU DO NOT HAVE TO CONSENT TO THESE FIELD SOBRIETY TESTS.

If the officer believes that he has probable cause that you were, in fact, driving under the influence, he can place you under arrest.

Post arrest, the officer will ask you to take another chemical test. This time, you ARE REQUIRED to provide a sample: either blood or breath.  Why are you required to give a sample this time? Because at the time you received your driver’s license, one of the terms of that license was that you would consent should an officer have probable cause to believe you were driving under the influence. Further, Penal Code 23612 states “A person who drives a motor vehicle is deemed to have given his or her consent to chemical testing of his or her blood or breath for the purpose of determining the alcoholic content of his or her blood, if lawfully arrested for [a DUI] offense.”

The results of those tests usually dictate whether you become involved in a battle on two fronts: the DMV and the Criminal Justice System.

Posted by BenchMark Website Design at 9:01 pm

California’s efforts to Reform Civil Forfeiture Laws Fail

November 13, 2015

Earlier this year, by way of Senate Bill 443, California legislators attempted to change the state’s civil forfeiture laws. As it stood, “local law enforcement officials [could] bypass the state’s less-lucrative civil forfeiture laws by partnering with the federal government and processing the forfeiture in federal court.”[1] The loophole existed because “under federal law, no conviction is required” allowing local law enforcement agencies to retain a substantial portion of the funds recovered under the civil forfeiture.[2] SB 443 would have required a federal conviction before assets worth over $25,000 would be formally forfeited.[3] However, while the bill passed the Senate by a wide margin, it ultimately failed in the Assembly by a vote of 24-44.[4]

[1] Institute for Justice, Feds Stymying State Civil Forfeiture Reform Efforts by Cutting Off Funds, Sept. 8, 2015.

[2] Id.

[3] Id.

[4], COMPLETE BILL HISTORY, SB 443 (current as of 11/13/15).

Posted by BenchMark Website Design at 10:02 pm

California Announces Medical Marijuana Will be Legal in 2016

September 14, 2015

In a huge win for users of medical marijuana here in the golden state, the California State Assembly, Senate, and the Governor’s Office have agreed to pass two laws which will make medical marijuana “100 percent legal[].”[1]

AB 266 deems all non-personal marijuana use “commercial,” setting forth requirements and regulations in order to oversee the new legal industry, clearly noting that as long as licensees are in compliance with the regulations, medicinal marijuana use is “not unlawful under state law and shall not be an offense subject to arrest, prosecution, or other sanction under state law, or be subject to a civil fine or be a basis for seizure or forfeiture of assets under state law,” as opposed merely having a defense before the enactment of the bill. Licenses will be required for a wide range of activities, from small cultivation, manufacturing, distribution, and transportation.

The Bureau of Medical Marijuana Regulation will be created via SB 643 to oversee the multi-agency licensing and regulatory effort.[2] The regulations will be promulgated by the Department of Consumer Affairs,[3] with input from the California Department of Food and Agriculture and the Department of Public Health.[4]

It should be noted that AB 266 will still allow individual counties to ban medical marijuana activity.

These bills will allow growers and others in the industry to legally report profits from their businesses, growers to sue for trademark violations, and counties to impose taxes on medical cannabis.

For the text of AB 266 see here:

For the text of SB 643 see here:


[1] D. Downs, Here’s What’s Inside California’s Historic Medical Cannabis Regulations – AB 266, East Bay Express (Sept. 11, 2015).

[2] S. Lee, Agreement reached on California medical marijuana bill, LGBT Weekly (Sept. 12, 2015).

[3] California Police Chiefs, Assembly Bill 266 (Cooley) Responsible Distribution of Medical Marijuana.

[4] S. Lee, Agreement reached on California medical marijuana bill, LGBT Weekly (Sept. 12, 2015).

Posted by BenchMark Website Design at 4:50 pm

A snapshot of California’s compassionate release program

April 29, 2015

What is compassionate release?

In 2011 California adopted legislation that allows the state to parole some categories of very ill prisoners[1] before the end of their sentence.[2] This system was recently expanded in 2014 as part of the State’s on-going efforts to reduce prison overcrowding.

Under the program, prison medical staff are responsible for assessing prisoners for potential release, looking to whether the inmate suffers from “a medical condition that renders him or her permanently unable to perform activities of basic daily living, and results in the prisoner requiring 24-hour care.”[3] Generally, these inmates are those who have been diagnosed as having six months or less left to live. Although it is prison medical officials who are primarily responsible for initiating referrals into the compassionate release program, prisoners themselves, a prisoner’s family, or any other appropriate agent of the prisoner can ask the prisoner’s primary care provider to conduct an evaluation as to whether “the prisoner meets the criteria for medical parole.”[4] If the prisoner’s application is approved by the prison’s Chief Medical Executive, the application will then be evaluated by a Classification and Parole Representative, this time looking to the level of dangerousness the prisoner poses if released.   From there, the application will need additional approval from either the warden or chief deputy warden.

After review by the warden, the case is next reviewed by the Board of Parole Hearings (BPH). This office looks once more to the inmate’s potential dangerousness. This time, however, the case is debated in a hearing format, heard by a two- or three-person panel, and the inmate is entitled to legal representation. The inmate is able to hire an attorney to represent him or her, or will have a criminal defense lawyer appointed. The BPH states that it expects to be able to hold a hearing between 45 and 120 days after receiving the referral from the prison.   If the panel decides to grant a medical release, the BPH will review the decision made be the panel at the same time that prison staff work to locate a nursing facility able to take the prisoner.

Concerns to the community?

In order to address concerns from the community, inmates released as part of the compassionate release program may be subject to the certain conditions on their release. These conditions can include electronic monitoring and physical examinations. Should the parolee violate any conditions of release, pose a danger to the community, or recover to the point where he or she is no longer qualified for medical parole, the parolee can be returned to prison.

[1] Prisoners given a death or life without parole sentence will not be eligible for compassionate release.

[2] Cal. Penal Code § 3550.

[3] Cal. Penal Code § 3550

[4] Cal. Penal Code § 3550

Posted by BenchMark Website Design at 10:46 pm

Getting out of State Prison Early

April 14, 2015

In 2011, California was ordered by the U.S. Supreme Court to reduce the overcrowding in its state prisons. The state has worked to address the problem by implementing programs aimed at allowing some inmates to earn additional credits that can be applied towards their time served, allowing early release to some inmates, and starting alternative custody programs. The Santa Rosa criminal defense lawyers at Li & Lozada know that the best way to handle criminal charges is having a talented attorney by your side, but if you’re already in the state prison system, these are ways to potentially reduce your sentence.


Additional credits for non-violent second strikers

Prior to 2014, non-violent[1] second strikers were given 20% credit for the time they served, but that number was increased to 33.3% last year. For example, under the previous system, an inmate sentenced to one year in prison would have been eligible for release after 304 days, however, under the new system the same inmate would now be eligible for release after serving 273 days in prison. These credits only apply to inmates serving time for non-violent offenses and offenses which do not require the inmate to register as a sex offender, and only apply prospectively, not retroactively.

The CDCR reported that from the time the program was implemented in February 2014 through October 2014 over 2,500 eligible inmates were released from prison under the program.

“Milestone” credits

In addition to the program above, non-violent second strikers are eligible to receive up to six weeks of credits once they have completed certain in-prison programs such as academic or vocation training, or a substance abuse program.

For more information on the milestone credit program, see this CDRC page.

Early Parole

Early Parole for non-violent second strikers

The same court order that implemented the programs above, also required the state to change the timetable used to evaluate when non-violent second strikers[2] would be considered for parole. As of January 1, 2015, non-violent second strikers are now eligible for parole consideration after having served 50% of his or her sentence. The state has defined “served 50% of their sentence” to mean “actual continuous time served in custody,” and does not take into consideration any credits.

As part of the parole review process, the District Attorney from the county in which the offender committed his or her crime and the offender’s victims will be allowed to provide feedback on whether they believe the inmate should be paroled. This information, along with that contained in the prisoner’s central file will be considered in assessing the inmate’s potential to pose an unreasonable risk to safety.

The State estimates that between 5,000 and 6,000 inmates will be eligible for this program in 2015.

Elderly Prisoner Parole

This program aims to reduce overcrowding by potentially paroling lifers and determinate-term prisoners who are 60 or older who have already served at least 25 years of their sentence. At the hearing, the Board of Parole Hearings will evaluate the prisoner’s risk to public safety, giving special attention to the inmate’s age. As it stands, eligible candidates will have “elderly parole” considered at their next regularly scheduled BPH hearing but can ask that their case be considered earlier.

It is estimated that less than 100 inmates statewide are eligible for the program.[3]

Youth Offender Parole

Under this program, an inmate serving a long sentence for a crime committed while they were underage[4] may be eligible for early release.[5] The point at which they become eligible for a parole hearing depends on the sentence they received. If the offender received a long determinate sentence, they will be eligible for a hearing after serving 15 years. If the offender received a sentence of fewer than 25 years to life, they will be eligible for a hearing after serving 20 years. If they received a sentence of 25 years to life, they will be eligible for a hearing after serving 25 years.

Although these parole hearings will be similar to other types of parole hearings, it is expected that the hearing officers handling these cases will give more weight to (1) the fact that juveniles are thought to have “diminished culpability” due to their youth and are not as proficient as adults in understanding the risks of committing crimes and the consequences that flow from breaking the law, and (2) the personal growth and maturity of the inmate since the offense was committed.

During the program’s first nine months of use, nearly 200 “youthful offender parole hearings” had been held.

For more information, see the information sheet here.

Alternative Custody Program

Yet another way in which the state is decreasing overcrowding is to allow non-serious, non-violent offenders and non-sex offenders to serve the last portion of their sentences in an alternative custody location. These locations may include residential homes, nonprofit residential drug-treatment programs, or transitional care facilities that offer individualized services based on an inmate’s needs. The hope is that this program can help reintegrate offenders into their communities.

The State chose to implement this program by first focusing on female inmates. To be eligible, an inmate must volunteer and have 24 months or less to serve in state prison. An inmate is ineligible if they are incarcerated for committing a serious or violent felony,[6] have a current or prior sex-offense conviction or PC 290 registration requirement, made an escape attempt at any time within the last 10 years, have been cited for certain in-prison misconduct, have an active restraining order filed against them, have any affiliation with a gang, or have a felony or Immigration and Customs Enforcement hold. Although not determinative, an inmate may be denied access to an alternative custody program if she has current or prior sexual conviction not requiring PC 290 registration, current or prior child abuse arrests or convictions in which the offense was related to abuse or neglect of a child, or current or prior convictions for stalking.

At this time, it is unclear how the program will expand.

For more information, see the CDRC fact sheet here.

[1] As defined by Cal. Penal Code 667.5(c).

[2] Certain inmates are excluded from this program including those serving time for a current violent offense conviction, those who were ever convicted of a crime that requires them to register as a sex offender, those who recently served or are serving a Security Housing Unit (SHU) term, those on “C-status” (inmates who have refused to work or are not assigned to a work program due to misconduct), or have received certain 115 violations.

[3] California To Begin Paroling More Elderly, Medically Frail Inmates, available at

[4] To be eligible the inmate must have been underage at the time they committed their crime and tried as an adult.

[5] An inmate is not eligible for this program if their sentence was a third strike under three-strikes laws; the result of a one-strike rape, of life without parole.

[6] As defined by Penal Code § 1192.7(c) or § 667.5(c).


Posted by BenchMark Website Design at 7:29 pm

Limiting the types of evidence allowed in child abuse cases

March 28, 2015

In 2010, Darius Clark was convicted of felonious assault and child endangering for abusing a three-year-old boy, his girlfriend’s son. Because the boy was deemed “incompetent” to testify due to his very young age, prosecutors called the boy’s Head Start Program teacher to testify, to provide information as to who had caused the bruises and the swelling on the boy’s face one day. The teacher stated that when the boy was asked who had hurt him, the boy stated it was Clark.[1]

This case reached the U.S. Supreme Court because Clark claims that the trial court made an error in allowing the teacher to provide that testimony. It was an error, he believes, because it denied him his constitutional right to confront his accuser, the young boy. As a result, the court is now deciding whether “out-of-court statements that children make to their teachers about abuse can be used as evidence if a child is unable to testify in person.”[2]

Previously, the court had held that such statements, if made to law enforcement officers, would be hearsay, and thus would not be admissible. Because teachers are legally required to report suspected child abuse to law enforcement, Clark’s attorneys have argued that “teachers are in the same position as law enforcement officials when they question children” in these situations.[3] The Ohio state Appeals Court and the Ohio Supreme Court agreed, overturning his conviction.

In response, the lawyers representing Ohio asserted that the right to confront accusers applies only if (1) it is a government official or one of their agents talking to the child, and (2) the official or agent is talking to the child in preparation for a criminal prosecution. Where teachers are talking to students, he posits, “it’s simply a conversation between a teacher and student;” such conversations are to “protect children from immediate harm and remove them from danger, not to compile evidence for a criminal prosecution.” [4] This is an opinion shared by forty-two other states, citing concerns that to rule otherwise would shield abusers from prosecution.

The case was argued before the Supreme Court in early March and a decision is expected soon.

[1] Ohio v. Clark, ___ U.S. ___(2015).

[2] Sam Hananel, High Court Weighs Limits on Child Abuse Evidence, FindLaw.Com (Mar. 2, 2015).

[3] Sam Hananel, High Court Weighs Limits on Child Abuse Evidence, FindLaw.Com (Mar. 2, 2015).

[4] Sam Hananel, High Court Weighs Limits on Child Abuse Evidence, FindLaw.Com (Mar. 2, 2015).

Posted by BenchMark Website Design at 8:43 pm