<?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: Maryland roundup	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://www.overlawyered.com/2014/01/maryland-roundup-9/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://www.overlawyered.com/2014/01/maryland-roundup-9/</link>
	<description>Chronicling the high cost of our legal system</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 20 Jan 2014 18:50:13 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>
		By: Peter K.		</title>
		<link>https://www.overlawyered.com/2014/01/maryland-roundup-9/comment-page-1/#comment-261998</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Peter K.]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 19 Jan 2014 13:10:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://overlawyered.com/?p=43219#comment-261998</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Walter --  With regard to the 3rd story, I practice criminal appellate law in Massachusetts (where the standard for abuse prevention order issuance is already mere preponderance), and I get looks as if I have two heads whenever I try to explain -- to almost anyone -- that Apprendi v. New Jersey and its progeny require --  in criminal prosecutions for violations of those orders -- proof beyond a reasonable doubt, to a jury, of the supposed facts justifying the initial issuance. I&#039;d be happy to share what I&#039;ve written on this.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Walter &#8212;  With regard to the 3rd story, I practice criminal appellate law in Massachusetts (where the standard for abuse prevention order issuance is already mere preponderance), and I get looks as if I have two heads whenever I try to explain &#8212; to almost anyone &#8212; that Apprendi v. New Jersey and its progeny require &#8212;  in criminal prosecutions for violations of those orders &#8212; proof beyond a reasonable doubt, to a jury, of the supposed facts justifying the initial issuance. I&#8217;d be happy to share what I&#8217;ve written on this.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
