<?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/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: What&#8217;s up in the 8th</title>
	<atom:link href="http://briefcase8.com/2009/12/15/whats-up-in-the-8th-49/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://briefcase8.com/2009/12/15/whats-up-in-the-8th-49/</link>
	<description>Case analysis with an attitude</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 28 Jul 2010 15:43:42 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Russ Bensing</title>
		<link>http://briefcase8.com/2009/12/15/whats-up-in-the-8th-49/comment-page-1/#comment-65807</link>
		<dc:creator>Russ Bensing</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 15 Dec 2009 15:19:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://briefcase8.com/?p=2420#comment-65807</guid>
		<description>The phrase &quot;you can guess how well that worked&quot; can apply to a virtually limitless array of issues in criminal appeals.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The phrase &#8220;you can guess how well that worked&#8221; can apply to a virtually limitless array of issues in criminal appeals.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jeff Gamso</title>
		<link>http://briefcase8.com/2009/12/15/whats-up-in-the-8th-49/comment-page-1/#comment-65805</link>
		<dc:creator>Jeff Gamso</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 15 Dec 2009 15:09:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://briefcase8.com/?p=2420#comment-65805</guid>
		<description>I don&#039;t have the cites handy or the time right now to dig them up, but back in the 70s the Ohio Supremes said in a couple of cases that counsel can waive speedy trial rights over the explicit objection of the client.  I raised the issue once on appeal arguing IAC for counsel not doing that.  You can guess how well that worked.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I don&#8217;t have the cites handy or the time right now to dig them up, but back in the 70s the Ohio Supremes said in a couple of cases that counsel can waive speedy trial rights over the explicit objection of the client.  I raised the issue once on appeal arguing IAC for counsel not doing that.  You can guess how well that worked.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
