MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
to charge that knowingly caused great bodily harm to jay jay a child under the age of thirteen and he struck j w about the body with his fist now after presenting about whether there actually was a fracture however the judge credited the state's expert that said there was a fracture so that's our starting point there was evidence to support a fracture of the judge believed it so that's where we have to start pretty small isn't that correct and so that during the sexual act that was committed it would seem reasonable that his hands to always stay on the but it's at the may have precise that there was one of the doctors testified there was a hand shake their hand shake the bruises on the baby's buttocks know that he have the baby on top of him he wasn't on top of the baby the bab that's corroborated by where the him shake bruises are the doctor said that one of the state's experts testified about how a fracture could happen so that it would require force applied to the specifically on this point i don't i don't remember  there and they were there in the morning after the baby was among the defendant during the night come to our we don't have such a narrow window for when it would have happened as i say they all agreed that you couldn't tell what looks good in a few days when it my main point here is that you couldn't tell from looking at the baby or from the baby's behavior that the fracture the fracture was discovered only from an x ray that the hospital took as a matter of we don't know when it happened except within this period now june fifteenth is a very significant day because on june fifteenth the baby was still only care so to speak of her mother this was before that she brought the baby scream is the statement she gave to police the trial she testified that that's the way the baby cries when when she cries when she's hungry i don't know the point is it wasn't just carol two that was clarify that for the court so we can infer from the fact of count one it's not a normal result of count one and there is no additional evidence to show that the lower leg was involved in child one so champion for it from that swallow baby's back particularly the bruising on the bus and the bruising on the right leg which was like that was fractured with a different you know when he was being interviewed by the police with the child look here he did and that was very
generally speaking in the absence of a fifth amendment issue the burden would shift to the other side to the rebut the presumption why doesn't it still issue because in the fifth amendment  stated that the fifth amendment context the burden cannot shift that's the the president may not be able to shift and i don't think it's what it says anyway but it certainly if that were the case only to the extent that the only possible response would be the forced testimony yes but that's not the only possible response well that doesn't mean for all we know other people might get a call to testify about his financial circumstances including expect sure by the skin tone that would bite that might be a way to address the burden having shifted to him to show cause why should we feel that might be awake to look at but we don't know because he didn't try by the we don't we don't know and you're asserting that we are also the absence of evidence also suggests that he couldn't produce that evidence somehow that the absence of him showing that he had no bank account by whatever means he showed that means that there's no such evidence so everything's a stalemate he can't be held in contempt i just don't i can't grasp it i don't previously found to be in possession of a rock in this case there is nothing in the records that i'm aware of that mr ray was found to be able to pay the sums of money that we're talking about but it was pre circumstance such as a third party think order to produce documents where the burden and the third party than previously thought actually possession control those documents such as  mr rader responded i plead the fifth amendment question from the court are you going to plead the fifth as to any and all evidence testimony that you can present in your defense today sir mr once i enter the rule show cause of the burden shifted two of you mr ray to show cause and you have not shown cause there for the court to hold you in contempt for failure to pay child thousand thirteen in january the same for february for child support and were many months the court want to say without sufficient financial information respond should case of which would shift the burden at least according to some of the questioning that we've asked had he even said there's no there's no showing of what there's nothing in the record i think that i testify or offer evidence yes and i think what mr mag was saying maybe not but what i'm asking about is what prompted to clerk to conclude there was a prime is you know section seven fifty eight i will see yes twenty two slash three sixteen struck the rules of evidence and procedure if a party called testify in the civil hearing refuses to answer on the ground that the testimony may be
on defense counsel's right to question ortiz and acosta and particularly cos that was not allowed to be ask certain questions about the the
document satisfy those requirements to express contract claim rather than work with the words on the page as here at the beginning of the document that will protect us there and that stands in contrast to the ongoing discussion of graphic it seems to me to
lou hi i'm david the bruce this is the creative good where we take a look at all things in creative commons and today in our ten part series we concl and we conclude in grand rapids not because that's the best place to conclude a series it's just that it's just the way it's happening we took a lock at what happened in l a in portland in washington in paris france we even went up to canada two major cities there and took a look at what happened there we've heard the speeches the music we even had a episode episode one of just getting ready for the event how it all took place today as we conclude we go to grand rapids michigan pat roberts michigan is a big place like new york or l a it's a medium sized town if i can call it that and it'll give you an idea of what the woman's march looked like locally so many people for example traveled into washington d c from all over the world actually but in grand rapids it was local yokels who got together to express their heart and their deep concerns about human rights marching collectively together each one for their very own reasons in grand rapids michigan the way that this is done the way it was posted in the creative commons is the camera just roll marching along talking so you'll be able to hear the dialogue and the people around some of the amazement of the crowd growth this is it's so you were in grand rapids marching along with this parade participating this is great it's even different than let's say if a local news covered it on the on the news this is different than that this is somebody on the ground with their really good quality cell phone just sort of marching along recording everything as they go grand rapids michigan this is symbolic of so much that happened worldwide hey if you haven't seen the other ones you need to rights women's rights are human right me what democracy democracy looks like this is what democracy looks like
identification testimony to testify at trial the second of the issues deals with the situation that arose with juror number two seventy eight i don't start to second in the issues maybe because it's something that we don't see very often and it's a little bit more interesting i think  lessons we all agreed that that didn't happen in this case we don't know where they came from from jury duty in but the reason i'm reading this into the record right now is because the state in their brief so to mischaracterize what the g but it still needed to be asked they need to get to that juror state of mind to understand whether or not she was going to be biased and this vague question about anything that could be like i said it could be concerning to the  determine that you have to look at these three disconcerting factors the first is that the judge would not ask any of the proposed questions that the attorneys gave them gave gave him he refused to ask who is really the one necessary question that was my question is if you see this accountability where the guy in the car is with your client let's assume for the sake of argument it is peace accountable for the other two the eye witness testimony somewhat pales to a reasonable doubt as to a condom yes and there is not a head to show that he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt he was sitting in the car what are you sitting in the front seat back seat it doesn't matter he was sitting in the car according to him he was just sitting in to make determinations of credibility make findings of fact possibly conclusions of law in order or a review to be made of the situation the state should have said we don't want to seventy eight period or if you don't remove both of them then they should remove you should remove either  evidence having nothing to do with the case it had to do with the juror and the defendant and no those who questions that needed to be asked and yes there needs to be findings i i would argue that there do need to be findings of credibility in fact and possibly issues loftus came along and gave another report and the judge relied on the findings that he made concerning dr flare up in the head the supreme court said no we needed to get into this more and dr my office should have been allowed to testify because one of the produce testimony from a qualified expert that speaks directly to the state's only evidence against him that's the same as here also and doing so for reasons that are both expressly contradicted by the expert's report and inconsistent with the actual facts of the case decision of that nature rises to the level of both arbitrary and unresponsive to an unacceptable degree and for that reason we're saying burma in this case are very similar but in this case there was like more than identification
work which is which is issued by the court but it's issued because you're probably cause was shown in an application thing you mean the question at the point in the the complaint alleges various constitutional violations and you know mean you may have defenses to that complaint but you haven't had a chance to assert them yet and i know the like to be able to make the argument that the the marshals when they went out were advised that he was armed and dangerous but yet that's not in the face that's not in the complaint is not in the four corners of the complaint the court can't look at that so mean why aren't we at us why are we at a stage and which you know you've made the appeals in the denial qualified i mean why are we stage it's premature for the dis
statement because when mr hardiman called then he didn't complain about the conviction statement that's in the record through mr assonance testimony mr flannery's testimony and this is very important because the case  story about a public official someone running for office their special reserve apply first of all that's clear political speech of the deserves the highest protection of the first amendment  you have to show the state of mind of the defendants saying something that was false knowingly false or seriously are being serious doubts about its truth the place has to show that by clear and convincing evidence there's the evidence in the record that he runs can do that and to your point justice curious when you plead guilty to something you plead that you did the at the just the same whether or not there's a conviction that refused to go back there simply interest and these types of cases is routinely granted because let's face it the respect to protect the media ok it's especially when someone throws her hat into
that the interim procedure be tailored to some skidmore deference we doubt that very much if at all should be ordered to that decision because this is my situation within the unique expertise that t to give a exceptionally fast way of getting relief precisely for those patent is who still have organise a means of getting relief mind to change what we're doing and do it faster than our other people who are no longer have the option because of the way they did it and in particular carney the ability to get that belief to the patent and so long as you make your request with then one hundred and eighty days when you days with thirty days or twenty minutes that's ok what they did was they created arbitrary situation they said only people who have gotten was some rationale for their adopting those dates and writing the interim regulation the way they did it wasn't entirely arbitrary they just didn't pick these numbers that are in error now maybe they didn't fully appreciate the consequences but that doesn't necessarily mean that what they did was arbitrary or capricious to answer to that st of all yes they didn't tie the two month do but it's always flawed because those that that rule talks about a situation where there is a decision and then you have two months the interim procedure said there was a decision but that procedural it was a con that was not required here i think there may be some misunderstanding of what the interim procedure actually accomplished it was purely procedural just allowed those panties who already had the ability who were already eligible for seeking review of their patent term doesn't determinations either in court under the one hundred and eighty day time limit set forth in the statute change the substance or any substantive right to didn't create any avenue of review it didn't eliminate any avenue or of review that was already available to these patents he's the sentence in the interim procedural with respect to the argument that the use of the two month window is arbitrary and capricious because it's tied to some of the bends that was outside of the control of the and filing deadlines operate harshly and arbitrarily to those people who fall outside of it and so i think they they absolutely recognize that yes such a limitation or a f deadline is going to be key to an earlier event and that earlier event is often going to be caused by somebody who's not agree so just merely saying that was outside of my control therefore it's arbitrary capricious i don't think well when the day with said that filing a one hundred and one dollars twenty three cents petition asking the patent office to waive its two month rule just merely sitting on your rights knowing the facts knowing the law is not
make them pay for what they've done than what they tried to do i have yesterday actually i've heard a lot about you but i have to admit it's a surprise what he's saying you are here in the wilderness why gene this country is practically civilized i st came out again it was really a wilderness sell out your contract to me i want to buy all your quitman and give you a bonus percent oh i couldn't sell wine so i stand to make about twenty thousand on the job you wouldn't give me that much of a bonus give you ten thousand and you wouldn't be taking any risk i've got two months to get the log down normally and if you don't that's plenty of time if you don't lose money on the go my way you can be sure of a conflict with the you mind answering a question  morning but i still don't understand this rodent so much to john and he just got to have a cot in building if you can't build a railroad without taxes so you know you want to say to it as the logs retail mahal i want that to be my contribution i can't sell this job means too much to me it isn't just the extra ten thousand dollars that's important of course but maybe i feel the same way about the railroad you do more than just a job it's doing something for the whole country no this is my cabin this is my property around here it's all right hold only and this is where we going up to the rest of the cross you won't talk so you will
trooper testified at the defendant's understood just of what was going on that the trucker did not say the fed understood or that he was faking it or that he had had the defendants for the whole time presence of alcohol was my client already admitted that he had had some alcohol earlier so that doesn't actually out posters likewise credibility and on the other the other officers observations stopped use desires uses arms gosh you can tell us when he did that and tell us when he missed he'll that's all can't tell us how often he uses arms can't tell us anything about and i was just the court that so that's not unusual that happens of administrative device drivers disposal the decision rested on the difference between the nature of the statutory summary suspension is what the supreme court focused on fashion meaning to the fact that it is basically the administrative hearing conducted before a court simply on behalf of the secretary of state to determine whether or not a person's action should be suspended because they refused to take a breath was because there are certain issues that are decided in that case in that particular scenario and that's that has nothing to do with whether not the defendant was actually driving under the influence of al simply is he basically was driving too fast for conditions or whatever here on the way out slid off hit the guy well somehow and basically ended up when he came off ok that's everything else basically there's more than ample evidence here just seeing the trial judge's factual findings of the founder was driving under the influence at the time and because we have that finding that finding his over so i think that i think that is more or if you think that is more rational here than anything else considering the jabs the guard rails on the left side that is the vehicle was on the right there's no
kid that they'll have to come out of there
we have four pending m m engine a probable of all round passage we will then adjourn for the day we will convene tomorrow morning at ten a m and work on the bill we will go are there any members left to be recorded mr lucas but mr paul mr mr chairman on that the eyes are thirty eight and the nose or twenty six file their reports let me just say make your members i've been told by the majority leadership the intention is to have the two bills we pass today and the bill we will be voting on tomorrow and probably finishing up on wednesday on the floor in the in the first week of may so all three bills will be on the floor whether it's one day and i don't know c b all reports have to be done the bills are done today will be ready probably earlier but  will be voting on these on the floor in the first week in may we will reconvene tomorrow at ten o'clock and work till five to work on the bill and then we will reconvene at nine thirty on wednesday assuming that we don't finish the bill the markup session is a
as to their particular motion not one three seven petition prior to their had not the coup were already determined and already entertained a motion to dismiss that was denied based on the big asian surrounding the motion to suit in that particular case going back first of all to march of twenty ten we've had previously filed a  offer we were unaware at that turning that doctor i ever moans bills had apparently not been paid and we became aware of that fact when that trent defendants file a motion to dismiss your complaint and the judge denied nap it is correct it was a six nineteen motion and the judge denied that he should never that this situation should never have come to pass if mr truly it's simple leave submitted doctor rooms billing to become a carrier or head picked up the phone and called his that the motion for saying sions made on behalf of the true defendants was based upon the circumstances surrounding the of the netsuite is the alleged failure to receive court one thirty seven sanctions what was the basis you were alleging in you say you would have are your you're bringing a motion to strike or
exhibited some rational and combative behavior as well now very reasons that we've discussed because yet it was overwhelming in this case
it one way go back to the air or to do one way is really just trying to say to somebody we don't like how are we going in this particular direction but they still come back so so what's going to happen with one wave are still people are still trying to get up here so they're still going to be coming back
green it was a mark of death that somebody had a mark and that somebody happens to be three rangers right now it looks like we've not only caught up with the devils brand again but we've found out they're doing business the same old way still wrestling think i'll be hanged around waiting for  you i told you a little while ago when i was have a job to do you cut the card to see which one gets it take care of the cattle situation i'll get out of the cabin and take care of those rangers if you come with me we'll pick up a couple of boys and this time we'll make sure that doesn't go don't bother us any more you reach the end of the trail you're under arrest if you have no evidence i'm going to prove a case against me from the look on your face when we came in here the evidence is in the safe are you going to open it or do w
mountain i'm homesick and when a man is homesick for texas he's got something to be homesick even so i still think you're crazy maybe saul but you might be wrong for i felt half way home when i dug his own clothes out of the tru different they will before i'm through if my dad disappeared it wasn't of his own free will but i've never heard of razorback course our so you did whoever was searching this house could give me the answer to my father's disappearance cut out the double talk let me know now what happened when i stopped the canteen it and ran to a man with a patch will reside that must be the guy you shot but we've got to be smart and the best way to us mark the other fellas make them think that you're not smart but that last part would be strange for quiet town here don't believe in these boys or stray to talk yourself into a lot of trouble i'm all out of breath trying to catch up with you are you going to get a little business trip to make i'm going with you no you're not why can't i ever go with you on any of these mysterious business trips why don't you ever tell me anything about the for you to get so upset forget it i'll be back in a couple of days do i'll break up their teamwork by making them suspect each other well i guess i'm going to be going i want to get to town before that gang gets there i'll get in touch with you later all right  wait for your sake would you my return that please mama surely you see i don't like it here we don't have to live here we can live anywhere you say i'm sorry peter let's not talk about it any more but if you could see things my way you'd be doing your brother a big favor well he shouldn't be hard to stop by our claim a little visit right i was drunk honest you know i don't remember a thing about it i know that i went with them to see even that was a fight the police say that i shot it down i can't believe that you did i don't know what to believe you think you can get away with this by not so you thought you could come in here and outsmart me the way things have been going looks like someone outsmarted you the police accounts and don't expect your friends today they'll be delayed when the boys get through taking care of them we're going to give you a trial and hang it because everything's going to be done strictly according to law will be the second pleasure i sent of a happy hunting ground so you're the man i want and i thought you'd like to know that before you checked out to make it going just a little bit tougher and you shouldn't have said that he's ever going to get a chance to tell what i said