TWO CASES ON PRETRIAL DETENTION HEARD BY THE CALIFORNIA
SUPREME COURT

Marsanne and Rose have played a pivotal role in limiting the use of pretrial detention in California.

They filed a series of petitions for writ of habeas corpus in cases where their clients were unfairly denied bail or held on unaffordable bail.

Two of those cases were eventually taken up by the California Supreme Court.

In re Harris (case number S272632)

The Supreme Court considered whether a court must hold a full evidentiary hearing before ordering a defendant held without bail.

Criminal Defense Attorney Marsanne Weese argues to the California Supreme Court

The court held that a judge must only use reliable information to detain someone. You can read the full opinion here: https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S272632.PDF

Watch Marsanne and Rose’s oral arguments before the Court here:

In re Kowalczyk (case number S277910)
The Supreme Court will decide whether courts can jail people before trial when they are only charged with non-violent, non-serious crimes. The case has been fully briefed and is awaiting oral argument.

Read more about the case here.

Cover story from the San Francisco Chronicle titled "Should bail be affordable for people accused of nonviolent crimes?"

Notable Outcomes

  • CLIENT FOUND NOT GUILTY OF MURDER: Client R.R. charged with murder after a bar fight that left the victim dead. The client was found not guilty after a jury trial.

  • CLIENT FOUND NOT GUILTY OF ATTEMPTED MURDER: Client R.M. was charged with attempted murder of his ex-girlfriend who suffered several superficial stab wounds. The client was acquitted after jury trial, accepting the defense theory that the complaining witness’ wounds were self-inflicted.

  • CLIENT CHARGED WITH ATTEMPTED MURDER HAD CASE DISMISSED: Client T.P. was charged with attempted murder after he stabbed a relative during his first ever psychotic episode. After much litigation, including several writ petitions to the Court of Appeal, the client was accepted into, and successfully completed, mental health diversion. All charges were then dismissed.

  • CLIENT DETAINED WITHOUT BAIL RELEASED AFTER SUCCESSFUL WRIT TO THE COURT OF APPEAL: Client C.R. was detained without bail on charges of child sexual abuse. Our firm filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus challenging the detention on legal grounds. The writ petition was ultimately successful and the court was ordered to conduct a new detention hearing. At the new hearing, the client was ordered released from custody.

  • CLIENT CHARGED WITH ARSON HAD CASE DISMISSED: Client N.B. was charged with arson based on an incident that occurred while he was experiencing a psychotic episode. The client was able to do Veteran’s Court and, after a period of successful mental health treatment, had all charges dismissed.

  • CLIENT ACCUSED OF RAPE SUCCESSFULLY DEFENDED AGAINST A RESTRAINING ORDER: Client C.V. was the respondent in a civil harassment restraining order case based on his alleged rape of the petitioner. After hearing, the court denied the restraining order.

  • CLIENT ACCUSED OF RAPE HAD CASE DISMISSED: Client K.L. was charged with forcible rape and kidnapping. After a thorough defense investigation discovered evidence that the complaining witness’ account was false, the prosecution dismissed all charges.

  • CLIENT OBTAINED A RESTRAINING ORDER AFTER HARASSMENT FROM NEIGHBOR: Client C.H. came to our firm for help in getting a restraining order against a neighbor who was harassing and threatening him. After a hearing, the restraining order was granted.

  • EVIDENCE EXCLUDED IN CLIENT’S DUI TRIAL AFTER SUCCESSFUL APPEAL: Client S.L. hired our office to pursue an interlocutory appeal of the denial of his motion to suppress evidence. The appeal was successful and the evidence was excluded. The case was published by the San Mateo Superior Court appellate division and can be found at People v. Ling (2017) 15 Cal.App.5th Supp. 1.

  • CLIENT RELEASED FROM JAIL AFTER SUCCESSFUL WRIT: Client S.E. hired our office to file a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus challenging his pretrial detention in a drug sales case. After we filed the writ petition, the Court of Appeal ordered a new hearing four days later. The client was released after the hearing.

  • CLIENT’S DRIVER’S LICENSE SUSPENSION OVERTURNED AFTER SUCCESSFUL WRIT: Client F.R. had his driver’s license suspended for supposedly refusing to submit to a blood test after being arrested for a DUI. We filed a Petition for Writ of Mandate on his behalf, challenging the suspension. The petition was successful and the client got his license reinstated.

  • CLIENT’S LICENSE SUSPENSION SET ASIDE: Client C.B. hired our office to represent him regarding his driver’s license after being wrongfully arrested for a DUI. Another lawyer he had hired failed to timely request a DMV hearing and his commercial license was suspended. We successfully pursued a Petition for Writ of Mandate in the Superior Court, which resulted in the DMV giving him a new hearing. We then won the DMV hearing and got the license suspension off of his driving record.

  • CLIENT AVOIDS LICENSE SUSPENSION AFTER DMV HEARING: Client B.K. hired our firm to represent him in an administrative hearing with the DMV after he was arrested for a DUI. After the administrative hearing, the DMV did not suspend the client’s license.

  • CLIENT ALLOWED TO COMPLETE MENTAL HEALTH DIVERSION AFTER SUCCESSFUL WRIT: Client C.C. was charged with attempted murder for allegedly trying to kill her baby while she was suffering from severe post-partum depression and psychosis. She was initially denied mental health diversion and then hired our office to pursue a Petition for Writ of Mandate challenging the denial. The writ was successful and she was allowed to participate in mental health diversion.

  • PUBLISHED CASE REGARDING BLOOD DRAW PROCEDURES: Our office represented several defendants challenging the medical procedures used in drawing their blood after their DUI arrests. The opinion of the Court of Appeal was published and is available at People v. Cuevas (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 1278.

  • PUBLISHED CASE LIMITING CONDITIONS OF PROBATION: Juvenile client challenged the imposition of conditions of probation as overly broad. We represented the client at the Court of Appeal, which agreed that several conditions were overly broad. The published opinion is available at In re H.C. (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 1067.