SVP verdict overturned for prosecutorial misconduct -- again

Prosecutor impugned defense witness in hebephilia case

In a highly unusual development, a California appeals court has overturned the civil commitment of a convicted sex offender for the second time in a row due to egregious prosecutorial misconduct.

The prosecutor in the most recent trial engaged in a "pervasive pattern" of misconduct and "flagrantly" violated the law by implying that jurors would become social pariahs if they did not vote to civilly commit sex offender Dariel Shazier, the appellate court wrote.

Prosecutor Jay Boyarsky, now the second in command of the district attorney's office in Santa Clara County (San Jose), also improperly impugned the reputation of the forensic psychologist who testified for the defense, according to the scathing opinion by the Sixth District Court of Appeal.

Prosecutor Jay Boyarsky

"This is not a case in which the prosecutor engaged in a few minor incidents of improper conduct. Rather, the prosecutor engaged in a pervasive pattern of inappropriate questions, comments and argument, throughout the entire trial, each one building on the next, to such a degree as to undermine the fairness of the proceedings. The misconduct culminated in the prosecutor flagrantly violating the law in closing argument, telling the jury to consider the reaction of their friends and family to their verdict, implying they would be subject to ridicule and condemnation if they found in favor of defendant."

This was the second civil commitment verdict against Dariel Shazier to be overturned on appeal due to prosecutorial misconduct. The license of the previous prosecutor, Benjamin Field, was suspended in 2010 based on his severe misconduct in several cases, including Shazier's 2006 trial. In the first of Shazier's three trials, a jury deadlocked as to whether the convicted sex offender qualified for civil detention as a sexually violent predator.

The case revolves around the controversial diagnosis of hebephilia. Shazier served nine years in prison for sexual misconduct with teenage boys. At the end of his sentence, in 2003, the district attorney began efforts to commit him indefinitely to a locked hospital based on his risk of reoffense. At Shazier's most recent trial, two state evaluators testified that he suffered from hebephilia, thereby making him eligible for civil commitment. However, they admitted that hebephilia was highly controversial and had only come into vogue with the advent of civil commitment laws.

Incendiary questioning of defense expert witness

The appellate court chastised the prosecutor for stepping far over the line in his questioning of a psychologist who was called by the defense to rebut the diagnosis of hebephilia. Psychologist Ted Donaldson testified that hebephilia is not a legitimate mental disorder, and that socially unacceptable or immoral conduct does not constitute a mental illness.

On cross-examination, Boyarsky questioned Donaldson about previous cases in which he had testified that sex offenders were not mentally disordered. Naturally, Donaldson had not brought the files from all of his old cases to court with him. This, the appellate court wrote, gave the prosecutor an excuse to recite inflammatory facts from select cases, which the defense correctly complained "were only brought up to incite the passions and prejudice of the jury."

The appellate court also chastised Boyarsky for impugning Donaldson's character. In his closing argument, the prosecutor described Donaldson as "completely biased and not helpful," called his opinion "laughable," and implied that he was biased because he had repeatedly testified for the defense:

"He has got a streak that would make Cal Ripken jealous. Cal Ripken the baseball player and the Iron Man that played in something like 4,000 straight games. Dr. Donaldson’s streak of 289 straight times testifying exclusively for the defense. Now he would like to tell you that is not his fault, because he offered to teach the State of California all his wisdom. His brilliance has yet to be fully appreciated by this society. It is appreciated by defense attorneys who pay him...."

Boyarsky also improperly attacked a psychiatric technician at Atascadero State Hospital (where Shazier was undergoing sex offender treatment while awaiting the outcome of his case) who testified for the defense. The appellate court critiqued "rhetorical attempts to degrade and disparage" that witness during cross-examination. The justices highlighted Boyarsky's question: "Mr. Ross, you don't know what you’re talking about, do you?"

"Here, the prosecutor’s questioning … was clearly argumentative, and was not intended to glean relevant information. 'An argumentative question is a speech to the jury masquerading as a question. The questioner is not seeking to elicit relevant testimony. Often it is apparent that the questioner does not even expect an answer. The question may, indeed, be unanswerable. . . . An argumentative question that essentially talks past the witness, and makes an argument to the jury, is improper because it does not seek to elicit relevant, competent testimony, or often any testimony at all.'(People v. Chatman (2006) 38 Cal.4th 344, 384.)"

The appellate opinion strongly rebuked trial judge Alfonso Fernandez for overruling repeated objections by defense attorney Patrick Hoopes. "Defense counsel objected to all of the prosecutor's improper questions, statements and arguments. We observe that not one of counsel's well-taken objections was sustained by the court. The court erred in overruling these objections."

Who’s grooming who?

In a humorous twist, Boyarsky was also reprimanded for misusing the loaded term "grooming" during his closing argument.

During the trial, a government expert had testified that Shazier "groomed" his victims by slowly manipulating them into situations in which he could violate sexual boundaries with them.

The prosecutor tagged off this in his closing argument, warning the jury that Shazier had "groomed" them during his testimony. "The grooming behavior, the manipulation, it still continues," Boyarski stated.

The appellate court agreed with the defense that this statement was "intended to inflame the jury, making them each feel like victims in the case." The justices went even further, noting that Shazier was not necessarily the one doing the grooming:

"During trial, Dr. Murphy defined grooming as a 'slow, steady manipulation to get a person in a compromising position or violate boundaries without awareness.' The irony here is that the prosecutor's conduct toward the jury throughout the trial closely fit Dr. Murphy's definition of grooming."

The unanimous appellate ruling is HERE. San Jose Mercury News coverage is HERE; the San Francisco Chronicle's, HERE.

"America's Real Criminal Element: Lead"

There are dozens of competing theories about the causes of crime. But only one fits perfectly with the data, claims a bold new investigative report. And that is lead poisoning.

"An astonishing body of evidence" on the international, national, local and even individual levels shows that much of the rise and fall of violent crime over the past half century is attributable to atmospheric lead from leaded gasoline popular from the 1940s through 1970s, according to the report by Kevin Drum in the current issue of Mother Jones magazine.

The theory has been around for about a decade, but it has been marginalized by criminologists, according to Drum, a political blogger.

As many of you know, childhood lead exposure has been linked to a permanent loss of gray matter in the prefrontal cortex, which controls executive functioning (emotional regulation, impulse control, attention, verbal reasoning, and mental flexibility). Lead also degrades the myelin that is necessary for efficient communication among neurons. Drum calls this a "double whammy":

"[Lead] impairs specific parts of the brain responsible for executive functions and it impairs the communication channels between these parts of the brain.... Even moderately high levels of lead exposure are associated with aggressivity, impulsivity, ADHD, and lower IQ. And right there, you've practically defined the profile of a violent young offender."

Drum isn't arguing that lead exposure automatically turns youngsters into criminal automatons. Rather, he says, the neurological effects of lead pushed vulnerable youngsters who were "already on the margin" over the edge into crime.

"Once you understand that, it all becomes blindingly obvious. Of course massive lead exposure among children of the postwar era led to larger numbers of violent criminals in the '60s and beyond. And of course when that lead was removed in the '70s and '80s, the children of that generation lost those artificially heightened violent tendencies."

The leaded-gasoline hypothesis explains some other demographic features of crime, Drum asserts, such as the diminishment of urban-rural gaps in murder rates in recent decades.

Drum concludes with a spirited argument for government-funded programs to vanquish the remaining lead in soils and homes:

"We can either attack crime at its root by getting rid of the remaining lead in our environment, or we can continue our current policy of waiting 20 years and then locking up all the lead-poisoned kids who have turned into criminals. … Cleaning up the rest of the lead that remains in our environment could turn out to be the cheapest, most effective crime prevention tool we have. And we could start doing it tomorrow."

I'm not sure I'm completely sold on it, but it’s a fascinating thesis, and certainly worth reading. I’d love to hear blog readers' reactions


The piece, published today in the January/February 2013 issue of Mother Jones, is available HERE.

"The best predictor of future behavior is …

… past behavior."


Past as prelude. So neat, so clean. So full of certitude. Like a fortune cookie Confucianism. Something you might hear on CSI: Special Victims Unit. A maxim cited by pop psychologist "Dr. Phil" McGraw, in one of his many self-help books.

I'm sure you have heard the mantra. It's creeping into risk assessment reports and court testimony by forensic psychologists. Sometimes, it's augmented with incendiary metaphors: The subject is "a ticking time bomb"; he is "carrying a hand grenade and it's just a matter of when he pulls the pin."

One current case of mine involves a guy with a cluster of several violent offenses a few years ago, when he was in his 20s. He was using drugs back then, and hanging around with a bad crowd. Plus, he is chronically psychotic. Not a good combination.

But if you predict future violence based on a set of risk factors like his, you will be wrong more often than not. Only about four out of ten of those individuals judged to be at moderate to high risk of future violence go on to reoffend violently, according to research. The low base rates of violent recidivism will be working against you.

Birth of a legend

So where does this idea that "the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior" come from, and does it hold any water?

Perusing psychology texts, it appears that the principle has circulated for decades. But as it gained traction, some boiled it down into a simpler, one-size-fits-all mantra. So, for example, the 2003 Complete Idiot's Guide to Psychology claims as an established "psychological fact of life" that, "when it comes to human beings, the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior." Period. End of story.

But this is a gross oversimplification. Psychological scientists who study human behavior agree that past behavior is a useful marker for future behavior. But only under certain specific conditions:

1. High-frequency, habitual behaviors are more predictive than infrequent behaviors.
2. Predictions work best over short time intervals.
3. The anticipated situation must be essentially the same as the past situation that activated the behavior.
4. The behavior must not have been extinguished by corrective or negative feedback. 
5. The person must remain essentially unchanged.
6. The person must be fairly consistent in his or her behaviors.

Here, by way of illustration, is a typical study of the phenomenon, involving college students' class attendance habits:

In a semester-long course, researcher Icek Ajzen found that a student's attendance rate for the first eight sessions correlated 0.46 with his or her attendance rate for the second eight sessions. As you can see, all the conditions are in place: Class attendance is a habitual and routinized behavior, the prediction span is very short, and there is little likelihood of meaningful changes in either the situation or the person. Yet still, the correlation is far from perfect.

Other examples from the classic studies: Frequency of exercise during a given time period is a pretty good indicator of exercise habits in the near future. Ditto for cigarette smoking and drug use.

But over longer time periods, even high frequency, habitual behaviors may undergo dramatic change. A smoker or heavy drinker might successfully quit the habit. A chronic thief might land a decent job, start a family and settle down.

As this last example suggests, researchers have also determined that the situation plays a critical role in behavior. The situation is often more determinative than individual character traits. Personality theorist Walter Mischel - frequently cited in connection with the "best predictor" maxim - suggests that behavioral consistency is best described through if-then relationships between situations and behaviors, as in: "She does A when X, but B when Y." So, a person may engage in heavy drug use when in the company of drug-using peers, but may stop using when she gets a fulfilling job and moves to the suburbs, or when she is staying with her strict grandmother.

Forensic psychologists jump aboard

It’s one thing to find a simplistic maxim where one would expect to - in an "Idiot’s Guide" or on Dr. Phil. But it is troubling to see it incorporated in forensic contexts, where the stakes are much higher.

Confusion creeps in when a risk marker is mistaken for an inevitability. It is true that people with a history of violence have a higher likelihood of committing violence in the future than do people who habitually turn the other cheek. Risk is especially acute for those with very extensive histories of violence across a range of situations. But this does not mean that everyone who has committed past acts of violence will continue to aggress forever (any more than someone with no prior violence is guaranteed to remain peaceable forever).

It's like claiming to know that because your teenage neighbor had a fender bender (or two) when he was first learning to drive, he will definitely crash his car again. He is probably at a higher risk of another collision than is his middle-aged mother, with her clean driving record. But he may or may not crash again. There are many intervening variables - whether he learned from his mistakes, the frequency and locations and times of day of his future driving, his choice of companions, the actions of other drivers on the road, the weather conditions, and so on.

The maxim also conflates all types of violence, and all types of offenders. For example, with detected recidivism among sex offenders falling somewhere between a low of about 3 percent and a high of no more than 15 percent, it's pretty hard to argue past as prelude. And if we apply the mantra to murderers, as did "Dr. Death" in Texas, we will be even further off the mark. In California over the past two decades, about 1,000 people have been paroled from prison after serving time for first- or second-degree murder. Their recidivism rate for murder?

Precisely zero, according to Nancy Mullane's Life After Murder.

The best-predictor axiom ignores such base rates, which are essential to accurate prediction. If we know the base rate of the criminal behavior we are trying to predict - whether murder or sex offending or general violence - and we know the frequency with which a person has engaged in that behavior, we can use a mathematical formula called Bayes's theorem to calculate a rough likelihood of the behavior's reoccurrence. (I recommend Nate Silver's The Signal and the Noise for great examples of the applications of this theory across a range of contexts, from poker to climatology.)

The maxim also snubs its nose at the age-crime curve, perhaps the most universal finding of a century of criminology research. As they reach their mid-30s or so, criminal offenders begin to slow down. Some mature naturally, some go through successful mentorship or treatment programs, some settle down and have families, some form mellower friendships, some simply burn out. Whatever the reasons, as research by Shadd Maruna and Sampson and Laub drives home, desistance is a virtual inevitability for all but the most die-hard minority of offenders.

This is not to say that the maxim is entirely useless. It may work fairly well under certain limited circumstances, if all of the following hold true:

1. We are predicting over a relatively short time frame.
2. The individual has a high frequency of violence.
3. The violence occurs in a variety of situations.
4. The person is faced with the same or similar situations.
5. He or she has not been deterred by negative feedback.
6. He or she has not changed in any other significant way.

But given lengthier time frames of prediction, our subject and his circumstances both undergo inevitable and often unpredictable changes, and we lose fidelity.

A ticking time bomb fails to ignite

In the case of the report I was reading this week, the mantra was a complete bust. The guy got out of jail and did great. He voluntarily sought treatment and cooperated with all terms of his supervision. By the time I saw him, he was leading a life as peaceable as a newborn lamb's. In his spare time, he even volunteered to help the needy at his local church.

If the evaluator had heeded the literature on criminal desistance, she might have seen this coming. The fellow had reached the age at which desistance becomes more the rule than the exception. He no longer associated with his old criminal peers. Perhaps most importantly, he had stopped using the drugs that had exacerbated his psychosis.

The past-as-prelude mantra fits with today's dominant, dark view of offenders as a bundle of perpetual risk factors, ticking time bombs just waiting to explode.

What it doesn't fit so well with is reality. 

A THANKS AND A SPECIAL REQUEST

As another year comes to an end, I would like to thank all my loyal readers and subscribers. Both readership and subscriptions have multiplied by leaps and bounds in 2012. But it's not just quantity that counts: Subscribers are a fascinating cross-disciplinary mix of forensic practitioners, lawyers, educators, criminologists, researchers, authors and policy advocates. Geographically, you hale from nearly all of the U.S. states and dozens of nations around the world, from Saudi Arabia and Turkey to Scotland and Lithuania.

Last year at this time, I sent out my first request for assistance, inviting readers to join my circle of support. Many of you responded, lending tangible support through monetary contributions, paid subscriptions, book donations, and other forms of encouragement.

The response was gratifying; I am thankful to each and every one of you who responded in any way. On a practical level, your generous support helps to defray the out-of-pocket expenses of producing this blog. (Despite the temptation to "monetize," I've decided to keep the blog itself strictly ad-free; Feedblitz takes 100 percent of the proceeds from the ads that they embed in subscribers' newsletters.)

On a more spiritual level, the support reminds me that you find the time and energy I devote to blogging useful in keeping you connected and abreast of developments in the field. This in turn helps me stay motivated to keep the blog going, even at those times when it feels like too much work.

For those of you who have not yet chipped in, there are several easy ways to do so. Here are three ways to join my expanding circle of support, and help keep this blog going strong:

1. Donate. Give a one-time donation of any amount you choose. Paypal makes it simple; just click on the “DONATE” button on the blog. If you prefer not to use Paypal, you can always drop a check in the mail, payable to Karen Franklin, PhD, 3060 El Cerrito Plaza Suite 121, El Cerrito CA 94530 USA.

2. Subscribe. A $3 monthly subscription helps defray my Internet fees and research costs. Just click on the "SUBSCRIBE" button in the upper right column of the blog. Again, Paypal makes it quick and easy.

3. Gift. Finally, donating a book from my Amazon wish list is a great way to show your appreciation. The list is HERE; you can also browse through it on the blog page. There's a price range for everyone.

Thanks again to all of you who have given me so much support over the years, whether materially or through your notes of thanks, your public comments on blog posts (which help me track relative interest in different topics), or even your "yes" votes on my Amazon reviews.

Here's wishing each of you an upbeat holiday season and a wonderful and productive 2013.

Snapsnot of blog visitors' locations at one random moment in time

Newtown, CT: Latest massacre brings more hand-wringing

Our nation's collective inertia surrounding mass killings is perhaps best illustrated in a YouTube clip splicing together speeches by Presidents Obama, Bush (II) and Clinton. Lots of hand-wringing and calls for prayer. Little in the way of concrete strategies.

Not that there is any simple fix. The causes are complex and additive: Easy access to super-lethal weapons, inadequate treatment resources for the mentally ill, and -- perhaps most of all -- a culture that glorifies violence.

Children in Karachi, Pakistan commiserate over shared pain

We are, after all, the world's leading imperial power. We aren't surprised at the spectacles of violence in Imperial Rome. Yet are we that different? We exert global control largely through military might, and celebrate violence in the service of a righteous cause. Where is the outrage over our country's slaughter of at least 176 children (almost 10 times the number killed in Newtown) by unmanned drone strikes in Pakistan over the past seven years? Those children are considered expendable, "collateral damage" in pursuit of a legitimate, larger goal. As rabble-rousing filmmaker and author Michael Moore Tweeted, "A county that officially sanctions horrific violence is surprised when a 20-year-old joins in?" Yet, amazingly, children on the other side of the world, in Karachi, Pakistan, held a candlelight vigil in solidarity with the children of Sandy Hook.

Untreated mental illness

As shown in a Mother Jones interactive map of 65 mass murders since 1962, a majority of the killers were mentally ill, and displayed signs of such before their rampages. High-quality, affordable, dependable and stable treatment, in which the clinician forges a real human connection with the patient, can save lives. And the great thing is, prevention does not necessitate prediction. We don't need to be able to do the impossible, and pinpoint which depressed, psychotic, manic, alienated or socially withdrawn man (yes, the shooters are overwhelmingly male) might have become the next Adam Lanza. Or the next suicide, an act twice as prevalent as homicide. Yet, high-quality treatment is scarce, and getting scarcer. Instead, jails and prisons are primary sites for the impersonal medication maintenance that passes for treatment these days.

Misplaced emphasis?

Back-to-back slaughters at the movie theater in Aurora, Colorado, the shopping mall in Portland, Oregon and now Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut -- among others -- give an impression of an alarming rise in mass shootings in the United States. Surprisingly, that perception may be inaccurate.

Tracking murders in which four or more people were killed in one incident, criminologist James Alan Fox found that the numbers rise and fall from year to year, but without trending in any direction. On average, there are about 20 mass murders per year in the United States, bringing the deaths of about 100 people, according to an interview in the San Francisco Chronicle. The deadliest in U.S. history, by the way, was way back in 1927, when a 55-year-old school board treasurer in Michigan set off dynamite that killed 38 elementary school children and six adults.That paled in comparison to Anders Breivik's 2011 bombing and shooting attacks in Norway, which killed 77 people, most of them teenagers.

Another prominent criminologist, Jack Levin, agrees with Fox that the focus on mass murder is misplaced, especially vis-à-vis the gun control debate. The broad majority of the 8,000+ people killed by guns in the U.S. each year die singly, often at the hands of family members or due to interpersonal disputes or drug-related conflicts. One-off incidents notwithstanding, schools remain far safer statistically than homes, streets or roadways.

Blaming "the media"

If the attention is being misfocused, that brings us to the role of "the media" in mass violence. It is certainly plausible that the media frenzy surrounding each new outbreak contributes to copycat crimes. If you are angry and alienated, why not go out in a blaze of glory rather than with a silent whimper. Teach society a lesson; be remembered.

Yet I cringe when I hear blame heaped at the feet of "the media." As a former daily newspaper journalist I can attest to the fact that "the media" as a monolithic, all-powerful entity is a fiction. Sure, over-the-top TV news crews (who hardly merit the title of journalist) mercilessly badger victims' families in the interest of titillating viewers. But despite increasingly narrow ownership of the major news outlets by a handful of enormous conglomerates, newspapers, magazines, and even blogs still feature plenty of thoughtful analyses and investigative reports. And although these narratives have some influence in shaping public perceptions, they ultimately reflect more than construct the larger realities in which they are embedded. "They," in other words, are us.

The half-life of vigorous public discourse seems to be roughly a month. Then, another event generates headlines, and we're spastically chasing that thread. Until another tragedy strikes, and the spiral starts over. All the while, there is so much noise (to use Nate Silver's terminology) that the signal can be hard to detect. As Ohio public defender Jeff Gamso muses,

People will speak of evil. They will talk about gun control and how this proves we need more -- or less -- of it. They will talk about security, as if wrapping ourselves in plastic will keep us all safe when all it will really do is suffocate us.... If you would hate, hate the fact that we are reactive, always trying desperately to prevent what happened yesterday. And doing it badly. 

Perhaps this time will be different. Perhaps this latest in a string of rampages represents a tipping point. But I kind of doubt it. It's far easier to propose arming school teachers than to directly challenge the culturally embedded fermentation of entitlement and alienation that kindles rageful violence that gives no quarter.

Further resources:

My NPR commentary after the Aurora massacre can be heard online or by downloading the MP3 podcast HERE.

For you Twitter folks, I've Tweeted a series of media analyses on Sandy Hook that I found particularly insightful. You can find them at my Twitter site or in the Twitter feed in the right-hand column of my blog's home page.

My blog posts after previous mass shootings include:

• Aurora massacre: To speak or not to speak? (July 22, 2012)
• Arizona rampage: Analyzing the analyzers (Jan. 23, 2011)
• Virginia Tech: Can school shootings be prevented? (April 19, 2007)

And here, finally, is an oldie but goodie on the futility of trying to predict rare events:

Systems failure or black swan? New frame needed to stop memorial crime control frenzy (Oct. 19, 2010)

Training: Controversies in sexually violent predator evaluations

I am excited to announce that the American Psychology-Law Society has accepted a panel that I put together on "Emergent controversies in civil commitment evaluations of sexually violent predators." I hope some of you will join me at the annual conference in Portland, Oregon on March 7-9.

The symposium will address three areas of controversy in the sex offender civil commitment field:

• Mental abnormality and psychiatric diagnosis in court (my topic)

• Recidivism risk assessment (addressed by my esteemed colleague Jeffrey Singer)

• Volitional control (Frederick Winsmann, clinical instructor at Harvard Medical School, will present a promising new assessment model)

Here's the symposium abstract:

Over the past three decades, Sexually Violent Predator litigation has emerged as perhaps the most contentious area of forensic psychology practice. In an effort to assist the courts, a cadre of experts has proffered a confusing array of constantly changing assessment methods, psychiatric diagnoses, and theories of sex offending. Now, some federal and state courts are beginning to subject these often-competing claims to greater scrutiny, for example via Daubert and Frye evidentiary hearings. This symposium will alert forensic practitioners, lawyers and academics to some of the most prominent minefields on the SVP battleground, revolving around three central areas of contestation: psychiatric diagnosis, risk assessment, and the elusive construct of volitional control. The presenters will review recent scholarly literature and court rulings addressing: (1) the reliability and validity of psychiatric diagnoses in sexually dangerous person litigation, (2) forensic risk assessment tools and how risk data should be reported to triers of fact, and (3) how best to address the issue of volitional impairment, a Constitutionally required element for civil commitment. The focus will be on how to assist the courts while remaining within the limits of scientific knowledge and our profession's ethical boundaries.

The conference schedule hasn't been issued yet so I don’t know which day our panel is presenting, but I will keep you posted when I find out, probably in January. In the meantime, if you are looking to pick up Continuing Education (CE) credits, the pre-conference workshops are a good way to get some high-quality forensic training:

• The ever-informative Randy Otto on "Improving Clinical Judgment and Decision Making in Forensic Psychological Evaluation," with a heavy focus on identifying and reducing bias (full-day workshop) 

• Paul J. Frick on "Developmental Pathways to Conduct Disorder: Implications for Understanding and Treating Severely Aggressive and Antisocial Youth" (full-day workshop)

• Amanda Zelechoski on "Trauma-Informed Care in Forensic Settings" (full-day workshop)

• Kathy Pezdek on "How to Present Statistical Information to Judges and Jurors" (half-day workshop)

• Steven Penrod on "Things That Jurors (and Judges) Ought to Know About Eyewitness Reliability" (half-day workshop)

Portland is a lovely city, especially in the spring, so register now, and mark your calendars for what is sure to be a lively and educational event.