about Heishman’s sexual abuse in one of two ways. First, trial counsel could have presented expert psychological testimony regarding Heishman’s diagnosis for post-traumatic stress disorder. If so, the expert would have been able to base her opinions on inadmissible hearsay — Heishman’s out-of-court statements regarding sexual abuse — and to discuss both those opinions and the underlying hearsay in court, just as Heishman’s experts have done in these habeas proceedings. See Cal. Evid.Code § 801(b). Second, Heishman himself might have testified about the alleged abuse. Putting Heishman on the stand would have presented risks, but would not necessarily have exposed him to sweeping cross-examination. See People v. Ramirez, 50 Cal.3d 1158, 270 Cal.Rptr. 286, 791 P.2d 965, 987-88 (1990) (<HOLDING>). It is therefore at least plausible that trial
holding that an employee who breaches the duty of loyalty to his employer forfeits his right to compensation and creates a good faith dispute over the payment of his wages by virtue of his bad behavior holding that on direct examination of defendant he is entitled to explain the nature and circumstances of his prior conviction in order to rehabilitate himself prior to being impeached by the state during crossexamination holding that the scope of crossexamination did not extend to any bad acts committed by the defendant during his life where defendant presented evidence of adverse circumstances that he experienced in his early childhood rather than evidence of his general good character holding that defendant was not resident of his mothers household even though his drivers license listed his mothers address and he received mail there because he expressed a belief that his residence was in a different location than his mothers home he rented and occupied his own residence and he testified that he was only living with his mother after expiration of his lease until he could find another place to live holding that defendant was not in custody during search of his residence