MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
philips obviously expecting this testimony to help the defense fund this case and it probably would have helped because several months before the trial phillips made a recording statement to defense counsel which  very beginning when this problem where he was that he was claiming that he could exercise his right to get self incrimination the problem here is that the court did not make a proper inquiry into what the basis for his appears to be the only person who would have been willing to actually explain what happened i mean there is at least the possibility that if he had been put on the stand in the defense must have had reason to believe that his acknowledge he didn't make that determination but he said i would have waited anyway the only particular facts that are a mansion upon this record are this this park incident hours earlier that conceivably feels to be charged with having stolen the fed snatching the thing is the testimony in the sense that they called phillips they had no intention of talking to him about the park incident all they wanted to ask  issue the people again search that the defendant here has forfeited the claim by acquiescing to the procedure used when the question came about and phillips decided to assert his fifth amendment privilege the trial where the recognized that he would have to make a determination whether there was a reasonable belief that he could be so and decided to appoint counsel for philips they came back the next day and they went beyond the phillips making his own statement that i would be something printed in myself it's his attorney he's appointed attorney making recanted prior inconsistent statements she's not tasks that those were improperly admitted before the court facts the trial made statements as to yes i recognize the fact that some of this i would ends maybe under suspicion because it was recanted prior inconsistent statements or because there was a deal made by the prosecution however he did recognize that much of  apartment if he didn't know who the person was so as far as the argument is her credibility determinations which the trial judge properly weigh also  people who are the statements is irrelevant and the people are saying that while this may be breaking it is also an exception as a statements furthering the conspiracy it wasn't just about shooting the protests having an audience showing that taking these are these are getting members because this is sending a message to the other others gang members they want a visible  points in the middle will always add up to the same distance ok so if you took a line from one and the other to a point you'd get a constant the would be
yea eh eh eh eh eh eh
and what about the testimony regarding the fans and how what weight do you think that had with respect to your playing a bad first possession so all that is sufficient to sustain
why don't you marry him need my advice and you'll go someplace more suitable to a gentleman bangor is a boom town loud rough going faster than the law and order takes a strong stubborn man to make his way here we need gentle men to  a lot to tell you that kind burn the place of the g way you come up with the words that's what i tell everybody that you you know oh young folks i am john is to go back to the camp in the morning go back  i want you to do something doesn't know i'm here and she didn't tell me and that's a lie no wonder that english is back of it i knew what was going to happen i was afraid of her i wanted to leave she didn't have to worry about that i was mad enough to run away jenny don't you think i know when a man is divine before he talks very much more you better prove that you had nothing to do through to home to the town what was it they w him you know i'd give him back to you if you asked me to ever not in my opinion of course you're free to consult with another doctor i can give you the name of the very fine one in boston i know of another in philadelphia i of your house no i don't care what you meant to you when you got a child i'm talking about what she is now i don't want you to be connected with y not in what way she's different from and now this time i'm not running away right or wrong my place is with janet i love her and i'm going back to china i don't talk about
point one of the contract required have to be engineering to obtain written authority before proceeding with this extra work in hand is it if if that so i mean is it your position that the were i think when they hear i mean do we could rely on a clerk i mean i think there's no doubt about that i mean we couldn't we have to rely on someone who is who is getting used to action a regular basis who is or context who is or their justice first question that it's not necessary for those employees for funding of the project debbie right spirit can you quickly give me an idea of the specific tasks you want to start out as i'm sure i will be asked for more detail nothing near showing that she's got to authority to do anything background documents we need to get started we have a lot of debt and superstar contingent that we need to obtain from the city and can use this time waiting for the official notice to proceed to start getting our resources lined up also could you send me the  project has to be done first degree section of the contract that she points to includes about twenty paragraphs later but it's all part of the same scope that the panaderia that simply her interpretation of the contract now that is exactly what the countr of its approval of its public area data that would have been the time to speak up now to just continue to work to internally invoice hundreds of thousands of dollars of services independently and you know laterally claimed technically flawed and the court said you know this is great because work was performed and you can get paid for it so we're going to give you this ring but in their case there wasn't they found that the contract was technically flawed and therefore without unjust enrichment the catcher had no basis to to collect for services reform that wasn't the case here we had a contract we pay seventy seven thousand three hundred twelve dollars and twenty cents on the contract furthermore i'm just and only
similar to  and see well it's a seven just explore on a case twenty fourteen specifically distinguished samuel ross there was also a crucial situation at bat that had been raining outside and a passenger who knew it had been raining outside a condition it is only dangerous if it's a run where the passenger would have no idea might exist and she clearly knew bill he did create a dangerous condition and there's no doubt we have been rehabilitated expert testimony from samara who's been recognized by other federal courts as a maritime expert who went through in evidence disagreed did appears in the case and we're going to give a closing argument about her senses and then we have reasonable people do from the defendant's perspective the argument we just heard w the people i met in a field looking down and i'm distracted from my ability to look down that's that's what the description is it's not this simple to me that's what the case is repeatedly said if the condition
next to him when he pled guilty to involuntary manslaughter and that prosecutor elicited from him testimony from edwards that i never touched i had nothing to do what makes it worse and of course the other wrong but why there was a substantial showing of a need for here is the fact that there was a li in addition to that you made a very bad judgment terms of the court on the stand which would preclude the ability to call elliot stevens who under the circumstances involved in order for cross critique to be to protect against a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel has to be a reasonable trial strategy i mean sell it in any call strategy on face of the record prosecutor put it in the statement of facts or the accountability the you have to expect ordinary at a retrial there's going to be a get another conviction because you know the state has its has had the advantage of you know having the evidence presented was the case better get going into the first drug and limit let me ask you a question about that mr sweeney because you have you throughout your brief about how the first jury rejected this witness's testimony and so forth and so on the trial court trusted so how can we take these arguments that you make throughout your brief about how because there was a first conviction that means that the they rejected testimony i don't think the trial like that isn't it kind of a dubious argument to go back and argue about what that jury could accept in so court if it's already been determined that well arguing in terms of the case appeared to defense counsel and defense counsel would reasonably had pled guilty to involuntary manslaughter and at the time being the guilty to involuntary manslaughter he made it absolutely clear that he had nothing to rectify to do with the stabbing is pleading guilty to attempted armed robbery n it might be because it opens it up to a rebuttal for the prosecutors say why don't you get that written stick because i was scared to death of th with issues that could have been raised in direct appeal because they were part  so i mean the whole arm of the state with regard to this is skewed but i read this you can look at manual you can look at one case after another just a step when you brought it up what do you mean
there really to timony about what's the normal human reaction time is i think there was testimony that it was two point five seconds and that came from our all our own experts said it was two point five seconds and i think there was the poor question your honor was asking about the way the record read the objections read the question right with regard to the use of the term law for the first question that came out as a matter of fact you look at the law federal government and you look
a general scenario general presumption of this isn't as applied trail so that we have to consider the facts of this case you must consider the facts of the case however on in terms  my answer is to call st in terms of the intent of congress it was actually seeking to close this loophole that had been created and what happened was for situations of domestic violence and the jewels are being know the station review process under section ten actually entails the same considerations i think same factors that would be considered under nine dollars c of the federal statutes so why should the state conduct an individual is reviewed it could remove federal the more serious offender maybe of a status symbol maybe a bigger risk well come under the civil rights restored mention but someone that's a lower level offender and maybe a lower level risk is to actually be on have their rights restored but they would be on able to potentially disastrous for your arms and illinois because in illinois under the operation of the last clause as  which is not according to  a question for lycos and you raised in your brief another argument about the facial constitutionality of a free do you still pursuing that how do we answer that when that was not the basis of the finding of unconstitutional if we if we said as we said before that we're the only reason the case is before this court on direct view is because of kind of unconstitutionally and now you're making a separate claim here that that if that separate claim is not before this court and we just end it there
we started saying trying to stick to the record in terms of the arguments and there's a lot of things that i believe council are that are just not in the record  thought it might be i promise i will do this in my initial argument but i think it's important to stick to the graphic but the record actually show mr robinson and mr meir never spoke it was mrs robinson for the
compelled to to file in his state from the two thousand and five two thousand and six school year to the two thousand and nine ten school year david school made in one piece here and his test scores indicate the consistently high come to their school when one is schoolmaster or have by virtue of the wong had to give notification to the parents saying i do know this particular school is failing you have the choice to take your student elsewhere and the district yes there is on but then i think that in the larger question just mclaren is that if the parents of the students of the district left standing to ensure that the district fouls the was and alternately to review what happened here because this is a little bit interesting in that what you're talking about is reviewing the policy of  this notion of their boss or some of the best that we can completely reinvent ourselves that we can circumvent the kind of undercut all these regulations goes nowhere because the determination as to what we must be submitting plans as to whether or not schools are going to be like the as after the fifth year you would be required to do more in the kitchen gardeners to one building kindergarten the second grade in the third grade fifth grade i think two different building you would be worse a myriad of things that you would otherwise be required to do that would so of course when you talk about who needs to know around her students around to improve the school worse to me than her means that in the process of moving them around the students that are don't know to what extent i do know that if regulation by the state is is contingent upon whether ninety three zero three follow the law in this case that we're serious trouble what else did the district do with regard to this future educational program to address the issue that the feeling is why peace corps raised and he said well you know we we brought in i pa all these things that were done on this quote unquote future educational plan certainly could have been done without changing schools the only difference is that by virtue of combining schools
suggests that you
arose out of a relationship between  between the physician and the victim they would be a patient or a special relationship between the gun and the patient so
so first case on the docket today is now with these figures in mind let's consider five thirteen for a moment five thirteen a states that they were sons of money on the property an income of either or both parties as equity but when it comes down to it  in this idea that i'm putting out there about that inevitable equals abuse of discretion there's more to it it just simply what we were discussing before additionally he's lost he twenty percent i believe that's correct i could look through every  think i don't believe that like great things in those sorts of things could possibly form the basis of that kind of decision when you're you're basically trying to decide  offered the same degree has been around for half a century offering this degree as contacts with a hundred healthcare facility contracts for clinical work as it's only your screen clinical services including any st louis i mean regardless of that and also he mentioned that she she spent twenty thousand around dollars for her part time jobs and that there's nothing in the record that says when that money was spent on it she her enough money whether
reasoning seems to act of the train reasoning but that those two cases there are in the minority one of the it in the soup because they still have a right to just see monies under public monies are we can actually because they still have contributions not only that but there was one labor and number two is a signatory to is a collective bargaining agreement that requires them to meet these contributions under the normals did you try construction if parties are not included in the description of who  as the fringe benefits the collection of fringe benefits brought in action brought by a fit fringe benefit from under the prevailing wage act clearly that is preempted by terrorism by the expressed language in section five fourteen i think th dillingham facts were of a significantly different from that if you look at dillingham and certainly when you look at some of these subsequent cases that talk about alternative unfortunate mechanisms you're left with a conclusion that if you got  clients were the direct signatory and whether they had said equitable and not doesn't come into play with mechanic's lien that because they were the purpose of that was for protection of employees material suppliers we're the contractor on the is whether we've been paid and my phone hasn't been paid and then the other question is is the money still available unlike you know privately to we can foreclose on the property you know this is a school you know we can't foreclose on the property so  to deal with different states differently because there are various state laws and the next big supreme court case is called eagle hoff which is a case where the beneficiaries of washington state were changed state that's asking for different treatment and our ministration must be totally uniform and that kind of law which is specifically talked about a recipe plans or plans in general was lay out criteria which is pretty similar to the trailers review that where you have to look at whether the state statute contains the provision directly referring to a recent plans and then
that this courtroom to believe that the state was merely speculating and the evidence pointed to the fact that the bigger that the prosecution bloke only speculate that the defendant committed this crime to people some of the evidence is stronger than that and that any rational trier of fact could have convicted on the evidence presented other people oh one of the most important things in this case is the timeline of events the the victim's mother dropped her victim off at the friend's house defended his wife babysat regularly for this child and on this day they question they that the child was dropped off approximately two o'clock and the mother testified  and defense wife also testified that the victim's mother changed this to change the baby's diaper at approximately two fifteen shortly before she went to work this temperature was normal there was no blood there was no injuries it's officers that when she looked inside the bank or when she changes she said well not well off the jury heard this and jury certainly thought oh if why else would someone say oh my when they're changing diapers because they saw i think that can lead to thoughts by the jury of what well if if the mother explained their mind that there was this injury and there i guess it's reasonable to assume there would have been evidence in this diaper that there was something wrong and of course the testified ten pm because he had to get ready to go to work he was showering getting ready between ten and ten thirty and then he left a temporary to his job at the hospital of lot and so between eleven i've answered between ten thirty pm and seven thirty am it was with the baby on the couch while john was getting ready and that therefore based on the fact that she was awake with a child that jonathan would have access to this child because she was with him the jury verd very significant here because i haven't seen the friends of sciences testified that it was odd it was it wasn't common that there was indications of someone that there was tested positive for this p thirty which that was in the diaper or there was one sperm on the baby away but the people submit that that baby white was used by the mother to clean up the child at seven thirty in the morning which means that it
down if and i don't mean to interrupt your argument but i know that there is there are cases but should we start with how they got to be in this article isn't there should we look at the reason my theory in the article when we look good definitions of judicial power we understand that it's the resolution of citizens rights based on the law and if we have the constitutional provision why should we apply in this functional test i think th that they would consider the function test because they made it very clear to me once that they had that decision was based on the captaincy salary issue so i believe that under those circumstances we have a human sin that really come along to talk about the function test and it became clear becomes clear as these terms are clearly in that part of the function in there's another part of this to this is you know is this really we want to stay here we have some significant unintended consequences foyer act in terms of how far back someone can go to request material we have how many thousands of people in the department of corrections at this time who could then start filing the foyer request might have a county let's say like livingston county that has four people on their state's attorney's office so my question to you is what are the public policy considerations for not i think i agree were because i took the similar position which is it's one thing to be exempt from an act it's another thing to have the act not apply to you because you don't fit into any of the definitions let alone the definition of an exemption i think we w justice it's unique as it relates to this will prosecutors and the question was asked earlier why was the state's attorney's office post pacifically in the judicial record of the constitution and i think that's a what does that categorize us as and does than forty apply to us it's not a public policy argument this is not an issue of transparency the openness of government because if that was the case for the part everybody knew the  the function to know when we don't say that the function that the state's attorney has an executive type function and therefore it's analogous to into the phone within the executive category no mind and i think the problem is if the legislature wants to change that law they can change they can include or attempt to improve the state's attorney's office at that point if that's what the general somebody wants to do that's what should happen if they want to do that but a strict reading of the work placement in the judicial article do you have to be considered nontraditional officer or can you were stannis be decided based upon your placement i mean is that what you're saying it's  a criminal cases and then if you keep those cases in return that would obviously real a separation of powers argument and there would be able to do so but for purposes of for you just as with compensation i think you can make that distinction provisions lease us to conclude that for purposes of captain sation stay series or nat subject to the provisions of executive order it is made very very clear that under the circumstances this case was only related to
fire a complete and the best show made a fact that as i said before all the arguments were raised these issues wolf were fully briefed the judge considered and he had allowed the g p m g v morning to intervene for that express purpose did they ever find it in the david of record correct property on august first two thousand and six after that are set for closure was part of the record title the record for this property it simply cannot become not record based on a foreigner shrilly least in the chain of title particularly because the document that purports
no or news sure