<?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: Long, single-sentence issue statement</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blogs.utexas.edu/legalwriting/2010/09/14/long-single-sentence-issue-statement/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blogs.utexas.edu/legalwriting/2010/09/14/long-single-sentence-issue-statement/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 20 Feb 2013 15:27:14 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Sandy Hausler</title>
		<link>http://blogs.utexas.edu/legalwriting/2010/09/14/long-single-sentence-issue-statement/comment-page-1/#comment-900</link>
		<dc:creator>Sandy Hausler</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 27 Sep 2010 18:29:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.utexas.edu/legalwriting/?p=147#comment-900</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Mr. Kodalli is using the Bryan Garner method, which I like and use when appropriate.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Mr. Kodalli is using the Bryan Garner method, which I like and use when appropriate.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Rao Kodali</title>
		<link>http://blogs.utexas.edu/legalwriting/2010/09/14/long-single-sentence-issue-statement/comment-page-1/#comment-802</link>
		<dc:creator>Rao Kodali</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 18 Sep 2010 18:15:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.utexas.edu/legalwriting/?p=147#comment-802</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I changed the last part as it is repetetive of what is mentioned supra.The narrative is simple and good.

Smith was under police control at the station for 22 hours. Police never took him before a magistrate or let him speak with a lawyer, and they misled him about the charge against him. They then arrested him without a warrant—which the prosecution admits was illegal. But the prosecution asserts that when the police confronted Smith with inculpatory admissions of an alleged co-defendant, that intervening event broke the causal chain between his illegal arrest and his confession.

» Was the court of appeals correct  in upholding Smith’s confession a product of his free will?]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I changed the last part as it is repetetive of what is mentioned supra.The narrative is simple and good.</p>
<p>Smith was under police control at the station for 22 hours. Police never took him before a magistrate or let him speak with a lawyer, and they misled him about the charge against him. They then arrested him without a warrant—which the prosecution admits was illegal. But the prosecution asserts that when the police confronted Smith with inculpatory admissions of an alleged co-defendant, that intervening event broke the causal chain between his illegal arrest and his confession.</p>
<p>» Was the court of appeals correct  in upholding Smith’s confession a product of his free will?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Magumi</title>
		<link>http://blogs.utexas.edu/legalwriting/2010/09/14/long-single-sentence-issue-statement/comment-page-1/#comment-755</link>
		<dc:creator>Magumi</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 14 Sep 2010 20:22:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.utexas.edu/legalwriting/?p=147#comment-755</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Your version is much better :-); I had to read the original brief twice, and highlight the clauses in six colors to understand how they fit together. Is there any historical or legal reason why (some) lawyers try to cram everything into one sentence? I have noticed that this unfortunate custom prevails also among lawyers from other, non-English-speaking jurisdictions, which appears to indicate that there must be some method to this this madness. :-))]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Your version is much better <img src='http://blogs.utexas.edu/legalwriting/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':-)' class='wp-smiley' /> ; I had to read the original brief twice, and highlight the clauses in six colors to understand how they fit together. Is there any historical or legal reason why (some) lawyers try to cram everything into one sentence? I have noticed that this unfortunate custom prevails also among lawyers from other, non-English-speaking jurisdictions, which appears to indicate that there must be some method to this this madness. <img src='http://blogs.utexas.edu/legalwriting/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':-)' class='wp-smiley' /> )</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
