Larryo wrote:

> >>>>>> "boerio" == boerio <boerio@...> writes:
> >
> >boerio> Does this mean that the restitution that Randal was told to
> >boerio> pay no longer needs to be paid? At least, that's how I read
> >boerio> this. It would be cool if it were true.
>
> Randal wrote:
>
> >* Please note that the following is based on a cursory examination of
> >* the document in question, and is merely my understanding. My
> >* lawyers may later tell me something different.
> >
> >No, it means that unless we appeal this decision, the only action that
> >will be taken is a hearing to re-visit the restitution amount. The
> >only amount in contest is the amount paid by Intel to outside
> >lawyers. The appellate court found that it was not reasonable for
> >Intel to claim fees paid to outside lawyers, since Intel has an
> >internal counsel, and also had the district attorney to offer
> >consultation regarding criminal activity. I don't have my notes in
> >front of me, but I believe this amount was less than $10,000 of the
> >$67,471.45 I paid for restitution, so it's a very minor "win" in that
> >sense.
>
> As I understood it, the court held that we should have had an opportunity to
> contest the outside attorney fees claim, and the case was remanded to the
> trial court for a rehearing on that issue.

> The C of A seems to have ignored the larger issue about the restitution
> order in toto, the effect of which is probably to affirm what was done in
> the trial court. Whether we can revisit that issue at this juncture,
> without an appeal to the Supreme Court, is problematic.

The decision sez,

"Restitution order reversed and remanded for reconsideration; otherwise
affirmed."

To me this means that the whole amount of the restitution was thrown back to
the trial court; i.e. even though the restitution amount was justified by
itemizing costs of different kinds, there is no separate "order" for Randal to
pay outside attorneys' fees.

It would be odd if this principle of "necessity" cited by the appeals court
only applied to attorneys' fees. The point of restitution is to compensate a
victim for actual costs. Without a necessity test, such as a chance for the
defense to counter, the victim can throw in whatever they can get the court to
approve.

-- SP





>
> "Once in awhile you get shown the light in the strangest of places
> if you look at it right." (Hunter/Garcia)
>
> LarryO
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>