ndment could not retroactively extend the statute of limitations for live charges, the trial court's holding would have been in direct conflict with the Ninth Circuit's opinion in United States v. Leo Sure Chief 438 F.3d 920 (9th Cir. 2006). But in Leo Sure Chief the alleged victim had not yet reached age 25 as of t

nterlocutory appeal from an order compelling the testimony of their former attorney over a claim of attorney-client privilege. The Court agreed with the Ninth Circuit's decision in Krane, concluding that the circumstances in Krane "support application of the Perlman doctrine because, without the ability to raise th

thority expansively. See 473 U.S. at 539-40. 542-44, 105 S.Ct. 3304. 3 See, e.g.. Flores-Montano. 541 U.S. at 152-55. 124 S.Ct. 1582 (overturning the Ninth Circuit's conclusion that the border search of a gas tank required reasonable suspicion): Ramsey, 431 U.S. at 616-22.97 S.Ct. 1972 (overturning the ■. Circu

from an order compelling the testimony of their former attorney over a claim of attorney-client privilege. The 10 EFTA00583769 Court agreed with the Ninth Circuit's decision in Krane, concluding that the circumstances in Krane "support application of the Perlman doctrine because, without the ability to raise th

nterlocutory appeal from an order compelling the testimony of their former attorney over a claim of attorney-client privilege. The Court agreed with the Ninth Circuit's decision in Krane, concluding that the circumstances in Krane "support application of the Perlman doctrine because, without the ability to raise th

terlocutory appeal from an order compelling the testimony of their former attorney over a claim of attorney-client privilege. The Court agreed with the Ninth Circuit's decision in Krane, concluding that the circumstances in Krane "support application of the Perlman doctrine because, without the ability to raise th