Case Conclusion Date: September 24, 2012
Practice Area: Criminal Defense
Outcome: Reversed (successful)
Description: The appeals court concluded that section 2 of the law prohibiting transfer of fluids can be interpreted in more than one way; and that our argument that it didn't apply to sex was reasonable since section 2's failure to mention vaginal fluids would mean, somewhat irrationally, that only men could be convicted under this section. The court rejected the state's public health policy argument for interpreting the statute to apply broadly to any unprotected sex in order to protect public health because neither the legislative history nor reasonable interpretations off other portions of the statute supported that conclusion.