<?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: A DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S PROFESSIONAL INDISCRETION</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.johntfloyd.com/blog/2008/10/06/a-district-attorney%e2%80%99s-professional-indiscretion/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.johntfloyd.com/blog/2008/10/06/a-district-attorney%e2%80%99s-professional-indiscretion/</link>
	<description>CRIMINAL JURISDICTION: Criminal Law Blog by Defense Lawyer John Floyd and Mr. Billy Sinclair</description>
	<pubDate>Wed, 07 Jan 2009 12:20:33 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<xhtml:meta xmlns:xhtml="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" name="robots" content="noindex" />
	<item>
		<title>By: Andrew Winters</title>
		<link>http://www.johntfloyd.com/blog/2008/10/06/a-district-attorney%e2%80%99s-professional-indiscretion/comment-page-1/#comment-109</link>
		<dc:creator>Andrew Winters</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 11 Oct 2008 16:42:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.johntfloyd.com/blog/?p=64#comment-109</guid>
		<description>What that prosecutor did was totally outrageous.  Here in New Hampshire, we have a court rule prohibiting any party from directly contacting jurors for at least 30 days after verdict.  The obvious purpose of the rule is that jurors are less effective if they have to fear being subject to intimidation and harassment.  I'd like to think if a prosecutor did anything like that, he or she would be sanctioned by the trial court, and subject to ethical sanctions by the professional conduct committee.

Congratulations on the acquittal!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>What that prosecutor did was totally outrageous.  Here in New Hampshire, we have a court rule prohibiting any party from directly contacting jurors for at least 30 days after verdict.  The obvious purpose of the rule is that jurors are less effective if they have to fear being subject to intimidation and harassment.  I&#8217;d like to think if a prosecutor did anything like that, he or she would be sanctioned by the trial court, and subject to ethical sanctions by the professional conduct committee.</p>
<p>Congratulations on the acquittal!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: kbp</title>
		<link>http://www.johntfloyd.com/blog/2008/10/06/a-district-attorney%e2%80%99s-professional-indiscretion/comment-page-1/#comment-108</link>
		<dc:creator>kbp</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 11 Oct 2008 13:57:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.johntfloyd.com/blog/?p=64#comment-108</guid>
		<description>&lt;I&gt;"She couldn’t win fair and square..."&lt;/I&gt;

With the mindset in society today, which often times creates the situation where a defendant must prove their innocence, it is common to read of prosecutors that lose focus on what their job is supposed to be.  

It sounds as if this particular prosecutor never had a clue.

Thanks for putting forth the effort to point out the problems this type of prosecutor creates in the judicial system.

kbp</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><i>&#8220;She couldn’t win fair and square&#8230;&#8221;</i></p>
<p>With the mindset in society today, which often times creates the situation where a defendant must prove their innocence, it is common to read of prosecutors that lose focus on what their job is supposed to be.  </p>
<p>It sounds as if this particular prosecutor never had a clue.</p>
<p>Thanks for putting forth the effort to point out the problems this type of prosecutor creates in the judicial system.</p>
<p>kbp</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
