MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
number two we don't know the depth of counsel's understanding the spanish language i know he signed a document that said he's fluent in the spanish language but the word fluent is relative i could indicate i'm fluent in spanish and indeed i am in large part but i would not purport to be able to interpret officially for a client of mine talking points five and i know a lot of spanish surname is just something and a wave of  the explain to him on this record there's no way to determine that so the answer to the court's question more directly is no there's not an indication of that but we have the year of the record to establish that translation was adequate but i the record shelling that was appears to be sufficient is in reality not sufficient and go behind it in a case such as this one where the record fails to demonstrate an adequate waiver for two reasons one because of the language problem too because there's not a sufficient three reasons really there's not a suspicion on the record called play and number three because the waiver that is on the record is legally in adequate it is insufficient as a matter of law it is not necessary to resort to af and this was previously filed and so i want to confirm with both parties in the senate that this is how they wish to see during that entire holic way there's not so even if you assume that he understood it all it still doesn't tell enough and so it's not adequate as a matter of law and therefore we don't need are there other affidavits to get that far and simply an inadequate jury waiver such as was the eight thirty nine two things i think of a purely or three things the christian people particularly important in this context first of all looking at it as a guidelines matter and looking at it is mandatory guidelines matter which is how the court you did at the time the sentencing there is no question but that the defendant's prior conviction flash convictions plural were all consolidated formally case post shocker there has to be some reliable form of the evidence upon which to hang your hat on that in this case it's interesting because if one looks at the documents relating to the prior case there was a crime bill crime allegation which would counsel here at least according to off the defendant didn't look him in the eye and ask if that was really what he wanted him on the actual jury waiver form was too much specifically for this case a form so i think you don't about twenty minutes ago that all works fine if you're dealing with a document that is and later in the language spoken by the person they can say look he said here on earth most first of all the presumption if this is such it is is rebutted by the fact that there's a language problem and is rebutted by the fact that there is no certified interpreter that's what rebutted and that's when the case law requires you in that i was the next point i was going to get to because the court of law to correct that there really was no colloquy at all the court's comment first comment which would have been translated is the court has granted the parties request for a jury waiver i mean before any
whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa
nurses found that absolutely everything was the same one hundred percent so really you have the heart of the doctor pointing at the nurses americans pointing at the doctors for the same exact period of time says that that number of pages don't count because they've argued heredia verse ryan where the court said there were fifteen thousand plus pages of records and so you should have known so and they asked for the names and addresses who they were before the center of you objected and then without waiting your objection see medical records one through five seven whatever fifty seven hundred pages plus of medical records medical records which they didn't hear so it wasn't until they took the deposition of the treating doctor who said hey that medical record is wrong i wasn't aware so i am their right to rely on that record is what you're saying you think possibly would have been involved in notifying the physician that this was occurring who do you think possibly would be reporting to the doctor about the condition  mean that's something that arises out of a variation in symptoms that are being monitored by the i c u nurses that's what they're supposed to do obviously if something is pressing on your e order i would expect the bi
within five minutes and right my question was not total but each time she reached down it really wasn't minutes it was a matter of seconds well seems like this officer kind of picked on the defendant here he was only just started following her for admittedly no reason and isn't the real issue here the fact that she did fairly well of the sobriety test and then when she got tested breath alcohol she blew such a large amount that nobody could explain it that's really really really power people to consume alcohol frequently in large amounts to be able to function at a level that people don't go into alcohol frequently at large amounts are able to function so i mean did you ha they don't understand will
know you have to prove no c of you they have to prove that the evidence upon which you will lie in order to establish c e o he peed is contradicted and in this particular case they did you know i write to sense once in a while in a very experienced judge told me something about the some are very interesting to the author of the members of his family so the question becomes the question becomes your eyes are not question
really indicates that even though we don't have to hear the question if we don't you know we can't make a formal determination judged marzio said at one point in order that he said  that's the way i've looked at it all along and that's how i'm going to fight my six fifty one c and that's how i'm going to answer so as far back as two thousand and six they're considering if that but nobody really ever says you know does the admissions and it looks like tally with these reviewing this realizes that and goes through the process so i mean it for all intents and purposes it looks like that memo got roundtable there are three different at least three different writing samples some are in pencil some are in pen and there's some pages missing s the same attorney right throughout the entire proceedings yes yes and this attorney on october seventeenth of thirteen said that he had treated the two fourteen awarded the rebel as will those condition judge to mars you always considered both of these trials i believe from looking at this record and looking at the things he said he considered the fourteen zero one to be p c p which we never saw we won't be having this discussion is it fact that they were filed time simultaneously
why it's a little different for this reason in a helpful to matter for present ones discovery and the other was contempt by the truck up to this court the question was whether or not there was actually time return while you're on time and that's that's the critical issue here there was never an indication that a specific either keep in mind five or six people at least have access to this property people have taken things our other property and his boss indicated that she took things out this happened after the discovery of workers and so we asked at the time really hearing took place please tell us what you say we took individuals are so important the one of nine thirteen supplemental eleven twenty one although we have access to the record the easiest way to give us that information is to put it in the appendix you have pages in pages and pages same thing here in terms of the court's questions page twenty seven of our brief talks about the fact that the inventory of the supplement or it was identified wasn't cash and if you look at the second paragraph of our because if it's a list of an inventory it's not missing items that it doesn't have anything to do what was in the house after the period some of these predated one of the things said by my colleague was that there was some kind of a letter
think i think the order of measures everything is probably about ten percent of those typical claims or three to five thousand dollars for fees and on the field would obviously not be with you would be if you had a little get over for sixty candidate for me only answer here but i'm troubled by it the idea that that once you get into litigation about how the pie is divided up we're dealing with something a little bit careful not to cover
you think that charging an ordinance is held to the same standard of pleading as a complaint her money damages under the civil procedure that bench trial by the trial defense counsel entered his appearance again in this matter and answered the complaint in a plea of not guilty and that the court i'm engaged in to the bench testified not only to the photographic evidence which was obtained at the time that the a violation but he testified to his own personal knowledge and what he saw as he entered into with the relaxed and the most how  looking at is says you're violating the electrical code and then you say what did in violation of and then you put the pedal to the british fifteen point state the kind of in between the fact reading on the nose bleeding from mr armstrong says he has a wave the is argument in that regards and let me ask you argument as far as due process the very first time that his arguments who are due process under the united states titian was raised in this appeal so he's arguing he that was sufficient to show that he had knowledge that he had violated the code is his and serves no other words that he acknowledged yeah i need to fix that you think that was sufficient and that's why i asked the city a motion for directed for that dealt with each complaint saying here's the problem here's the problem here's around it because it seems to me that if you did not then th
this out of baseball reference if you guys want to take a look type in steve sacks i'm just reading off here it says he bets right throws right at that time is five eleven one eighty five he was born january twenty ninth one nine hundred sixty in sacramento california he's now proximate about fifty four years old his high school was marshall high school and west sacramento california he was drafted by the l a dodgers in the ninth round of the one nine hundred seventy eight amateur draft and his says his brother was dave sacks so why don't we get started steve tell us about the high school years and how you got noticed and who came down to see your games or how they finally signed you and where you think of college or anything like that feel free to lead we have a lot of baseball fans that go to school here we go to about two hundred thousand students that come to the all the colleges around here one of those harvard and now boston university boston college so it's a college town so people do see my show so feel free to take all take us back to the high school years of you know what did you do well in high school how did they find you did you want to try out go ahead it's your turn  that grueling a lot of workouts a lot of travel on buses you know tell us what it was like so people know because a lot of people think it's just like local baseball down the street they don't realize the effort you have to put in people they don't understand my league baseball it's a real job and you have to perform they think it's just a matter of getting signed and now everything's all rosy they don't realize the hard work that it takes to get to be an m l be player so feel free to let people know that sit around the couch and all that stuff how hard it is and you know how much fun it is to ride on the bus twenty four hard work actually starts when you find that right now finally you make the major leagues what was that like maybe your first major league at that some time in the around one thousand nine hundred one right at age twenty one in my first television so what was your mind walking up to the plate that world series you got instead of hundreds of players even ernie banks never played in the world series and here you were twenty one walking up to the plate can you  sox is that what it is for one hundred forty three games so tell us about what happened that you moved from the yankee stadium to chicago ok yeah after the ninety know till i saw him on you tube so we have five minutes left so this is your opportunity to tell people whatever their thoughts are on your mind and how they can maybe reach you and maybe what you're thinking about doing for the future this y do some speaking in front of any you know corporations that might want his help thank you very much appreciate it another segment thank you
want to have the size that the money aspect of this case is not merely close to the central elements of the government's case the government's case here revolves around the testimony  people do not engage in one hundred thousand dollars worth of wire my friends actions and not involve some sort of the subsequent statement which isn't a after and i think the fence is suited after the officer says any question in fact they were getting ready to take everybody somewhere else and i think from the faster the  to the post folding and looking inside of a paper bag that was located inside the vehicle but at the same time the court held that this consent was would not extend to the breaking on the other and if we look at what the circuit courts have  know i'm having i mean i think your analysis is right on the sense of we're trying to figure out where on the spectrum so we have to teach him and just mention we were looking at the cardboard in the court specifically so they didn't have to pry like a plane do you feel that then we have these other cases that say for example if you want for somebody to search your trunk they can search anything in there that might indicate that they think reasonably might include contraband how do you reconcile said and i quote different type of double double sided tape that song is very very hard i mean it was difficult to get a part but once you got a piece of that he could put his hand the first thing i'd like to clarify if i may is timing of things the description that council brings us method of search sounds an awful lot like
not sure is particularly important with the record is not accurate that you don't want her mr chair to complain the union member who was there said he didn't recall the
the cation you got there's been no admission right so you can the police willingly only get on the stand and start testifying about all the questions they ask your with the reason the relevancy or the question natural from the police officer i think they just go in the ocean rescue them is to show in the course of their investigation they were testing to see if this was the one put the officer on the stand and by the way typically would be a defendant who would want to guy's denying everything as never admitted anything then the the defendant is trying to put well the officer asked all these questions the guy denied it all the way through so and typically the motion to allow this evidence truck work denying the defense trying to put that on because there were these denials prior consistent statements that that i'm denying you know that as i don't know what happened then the evidence is that he was with the child this in this vicinity of the child during this period of time as that come in the officer testifies
was necessary to complete the delivery of the green out of the machinery or tools it's a specific piece of farm equipment designed to move goods from one level to another love less exact what was happening here is a divorce well it's a piece of is it true that seven desh three one seven creates a kind of third party beneficiary status pretty user of the tr not the young man who got injured but the young man that got injured he is the permissive user and the third party beneficiary of this contract under seven and seven yes i wouldn't call it
i want to make sure that at some point when somebody else listens to this that we understand why everybody is sure that's all well and i'm sorry i'm just saying to the people who were involved in making good solutions about building that building the building had burned down to the accident from most of the most of the adopters that are identified so that are beyond subpoena power anyway it's not as if having this beneath the sea clear makes it any more available for us to force a doctor to come across the river or even to the pier anyway but as far as the self discovery goes the location of discovery with today's technology as you mentioned isn't as significant anymore because we p d f it things like that so i guess just there is concern about usually leave us to be granted so that my colleagues
see that as he had a severe disability that was serious and so she couldn't understand the nature of the act or give consent this is a sensitive interview in this case was taken one day after the attack this isn't a
that point my argument that the more coverage the decision the st district katie's not only doesn't say that there is no contract it actually says the opposite it actually says that there was a contract if there was ethical lien law that we know that if the outlook asian does you know you're you're supposed to pay this debt or this obligation wrong or out of a fund that that doesn't satisfy the requirements and that q you mean that you you or you're thrown in a towel you're going to lose on the other points no i'm saying that the often in this position it could not possibly be the same without the contest in richmond things could be laid out and this in the as opposed to somebody had an obligation ignore that obligation so what would happen is we go to trial and finish the trial and and then we not only have to come back t how this started was when the custody case was moving forward and if the defeat became higher and higher it was the client more polish who suggested so look at chinese office came out of that country with between now because in the course of the scope of their representation of her they have she has a right answer client to direct how those to make a correction within that scope you that we determine if there is a contract in fact with more more cope it and we can't do that because she's not part of this litigation at this time and that's why without that resolution there are problems not an idea that that makes me sound silly or foolish it's exactly the contrary it's precisely what the parties agreed to they could read to assign the personal injury proceeds roundabouts about that but she was pretty clear that she just didn't think the pleadings were sufficient in a lot of ways and she was trying to figure out what the real issue is here are you in part i believe you me never to new house and she ended up dismissive of prejudice but the issue of discretion doesn't appear to be necessarily raised in in that setting aside the issue that gets decided upon here because obviously there is a then a procedure that occur that there there could have been an attorney's lien filed and maybe should have been but then mr you could show me if i can't read things critically it is saying here that's going to compromise and said take them or leave home that's nowhere in the record because that's not what happened we're told it was part of my wife for seven years i represented her she had my cell phone over she encompass that when this all happened there was never an adversarial relationship so to make those statements is i find kind of preprocessor the next thing that he said that they have and make a decision based on the other serialization ship and maybe some other my my security agreement correct and reliance on that and then that is that he departed to get the money so i am against the money and instead of saying we got the money mr world it we've
they were shot inside the car of a crowd of people gathered around the scene of the shooting approximately two minutes after the car was put out to the police officer jeff was divorced showed up at the car he fired the vehicle and he said  but there was a bunch of people milling around near the scene of the shooting and here were heard persons in the crowd saying that mr lost that he did not identify any particular member of this problem is that there is no indication to any member of what subsequently the witnesses testified to a trial but there's no indication in the record any of these witnesses were members of the crowd or that they spoke to the police prior to mr wallace and the rest in fact where the record shows apologise for shooting him in the arm that it was not the defendant but he refused to identify the person that made that statement that was shortly after that very shortly after the shooting maybe within a i believe just two months your honor i think it was in may in this year it was in what mr roy has also said that it was not mr wallace who apologized for shooting really discovered evidence and wasn't evidence of actual innocence and i think if you can only as the case this case based on other words i think the score will conclude in the one that with respect to foster's affidavit it was not really discover look at the totality of the place knew was there probable cause to believe got an offender committed this crime yes there is and that is what this is used to determine whether or not the arrest was proper and the fact that information is not necessarily do not believe that that in this particular case that these allegations state than just a constitutional claim in charges properly dismissed this petition of the first page if there are any questions i mean what happened
management will be absolutely imperative so that the kids can proceed to trial in order to be in an orderly fashion but there is nothing inconsistent about efficient case manager and this particular action and a great trial that's been the issue of express the screen real language has been addressed in other cases whether that language is effective if it's used in a complaint i think is an issue would be an issue of first impression i don't believe that has been considered  procedure here which i think in the bad case that we cited in our reply really nice the shows the operation of all of those rules they are in the plane forty three plane destroying together in a single complaint that case was destined for reference also to the mass toward the order to with case management routers and how that has to do with discover deadlines motion deadlines so when we when we roll through the plan use or following these cases together with the name it's one hundred thirteen kleiner of one hundred thirteen cases with twenty eight different state laws and within the master's program the most three can be tried at the same time now there's been no intent was that it was going to go on with my program and when you look at the subsequently follow motion to be included in the master's program it shows once again that our intent was to be with the and in this case they dealt with those phrases for all purposes inconsistent judgments conflicting determination right the way the same way the opponents of this case are playing on a trial but  doesn't appear in the statute which required by cathles basic requirements is that there be proposal here and there was plainly a proposal in the plaintiff's out single complaint there was a proposal that those claims be tried first i think the language that they use is not an express disclaimer at the joint trial the language that they did use says that they seek a jury trial and an award of damages and i do think that that's significant here and when you look at the type of our position that those requirements the proposal that there be a joint trial we have demonstrated that there has been a proposal here and the proposal is by virtue of filing the single complaint the question then turns has to have a claim to that would have made this case something other than ever group of mass action they they didn't they could have put you know perhaps words in the complaint that that expressly disclaimed a desire for a try trial they didn't do that they could have filed one hundred thirteen