<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	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:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Letter of Apology &#187; Grand Jury</title>
	<atom:link href="http://letterofapology.com/category/grand-jury/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://letterofapology.com</link>
	<description>a white-collar blog</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 24 Jun 2010 16:12:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>First Circuit Victory For Andrew Good In Grand Jury Transcript Access Opinion</title>
		<link>http://letterofapology.com/2009/05/13/first-circuit-victory-for-andrew-good-in-grand-jury-transcript-access-opinion/</link>
		<comments>http://letterofapology.com/2009/05/13/first-circuit-victory-for-andrew-good-in-grand-jury-transcript-access-opinion/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2009 03:03:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Solomon Wisenberg</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Grand Jury]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://letterofapology.com/2009/05/13/first-circuit-victory-for-andrew-good-in-grand-jury-transcript-access-opinion/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Boston white collar attorney Andrew Good and his firm, Good &#38; Cormier, have won a significant victory in a First Circuit decision involving access by witnesses to their own federal grand jury transcripts. The opinion, N0. 08-1880, is styled IN RE: GRAND JURY and was issued on May 11. Although the opinion does not go [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Boston white collar attorney Andrew Good and his firm, Good &amp; Cormier, have won a significant victory in a First Circuit decision involving access by witnesses to their own federal grand jury transcripts. The <a href="http://letterofapology.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/unitedstatescourtofappeals-opinionre08-1880.pdf">opinion</a>, N0. 08-1880, is styled <span style="text-decoration: underline;">IN RE: GRAND JURY</span> and was issued on May 11. Although the opinion does not go as far as the landmark 2007 D.C. Circuit ruling in <span style="text-decoration: underline;">In re Grand Jury</span>, 490 F.3d 978, it lowers the burden a grand jury witness must meet in the First Circuit in order to gain <strong><span style="text-decoration: underline;">access to</span></strong>, as opposed to <strong><span style="text-decoration: underline;">a copy of</span></strong>, his or her grand jury transcript when facing the prospect of re-appearing before the grand jury. Such witnesses are often subject to an increased risk of perjury prosecutions, by virtue of having made inconsistent statements over time. The majority also found that the three (count &#8216;em, three!) AUSAs who questioned the witness were verbally abusive.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://letterofapology.com/2009/05/13/first-circuit-victory-for-andrew-good-in-grand-jury-transcript-access-opinion/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

