<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss"
	xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: Lerach: &#8220;Serving Time, but Lacking Remorse&#8221;	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://www.overlawyered.com/2008/06/lerach-serving-time-but-lacking-remorse/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://www.overlawyered.com/2008/06/lerach-serving-time-but-lacking-remorse/</link>
	<description>Chronicling the high cost of our legal system</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 30 Jun 2008 11:43:30 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>
		By: Rebutting Bill Lerach in Portfolio		</title>
		<link>https://www.overlawyered.com/2008/06/lerach-serving-time-but-lacking-remorse/comment-page-1/#comment-23322</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Rebutting Bill Lerach in Portfolio]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 30 Jun 2008 11:43:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://overlawyered.com/?p=7117#comment-23322</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[[...] Frank has some further thoughts on that point. And note (from Nocera) that Lerach&#8217;s &#8220;everyone did it&#8221; swipes at his colleagues [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] Frank has some further thoughts on that point. And note (from Nocera) that Lerach&#8217;s &#8220;everyone did it&#8221; swipes at his colleagues [&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Ken		</title>
		<link>https://www.overlawyered.com/2008/06/lerach-serving-time-but-lacking-remorse/comment-page-1/#comment-20599</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Ken]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 07 Jun 2008 17:58:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://overlawyered.com/?p=7117#comment-20599</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[And by the way, for clarity, the guilty plea alone was sufficient to get the acceptance of responsibility adjustment.  Any letter or statement of apology is just frosting (and an appeal to leniency within a guideline range, and post-Batson, to go below the guidelines).  A judge certainly can refuse to give acceptance based on lies in such statements, but it is unlikely that the 9th Circuit would overturn a judge who declined to do so.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>And by the way, for clarity, the guilty plea alone was sufficient to get the acceptance of responsibility adjustment.  Any letter or statement of apology is just frosting (and an appeal to leniency within a guideline range, and post-Batson, to go below the guidelines).  A judge certainly can refuse to give acceptance based on lies in such statements, but it is unlikely that the 9th Circuit would overturn a judge who declined to do so.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Ken		</title>
		<link>https://www.overlawyered.com/2008/06/lerach-serving-time-but-lacking-remorse/comment-page-1/#comment-20598</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Ken]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 07 Jun 2008 17:56:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://overlawyered.com/?p=7117#comment-20598</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[I was an AUSA in that office, and practice criminal defense now.

The USAO almost never charges perjury or obstruction separately based on a defendant lying at trial or at sentencing.  I suspect it&#039;s a cultural thing, plus if I recall correctly you&#039;ve got to get all sorts of DoJ approval to do it.  I think it would be widely perceived as sour grapes by a party unsatisfied with the result, and an attempt at the second bite of the apple (to further abuse the fruit metaphor).  I suspect most federal judges would not like it, as it appears to impinge on their power.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I was an AUSA in that office, and practice criminal defense now.</p>
<p>The USAO almost never charges perjury or obstruction separately based on a defendant lying at trial or at sentencing.  I suspect it&#8217;s a cultural thing, plus if I recall correctly you&#8217;ve got to get all sorts of DoJ approval to do it.  I think it would be widely perceived as sour grapes by a party unsatisfied with the result, and an attempt at the second bite of the apple (to further abuse the fruit metaphor).  I suspect most federal judges would not like it, as it appears to impinge on their power.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
