MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
to represent oneself in the exercise if made requested weeks prior to trial fred said nothing else about whether it could be ex exercise in the middle of trial the district  you've already got the witnesses who have already testified halfway through the trial are we to say that with five minutes left in trial the defendant can stand up and say your honor i want to pick off my counsel and called twenty witnesses the question is did the trial court's reasoning was it on reasonable and i don't think we you can sit here in the absence of any supreme court authority on that point and say no no court can ever come up with that in fact we already know from our keenness the u s supreme court on appeal you can exercise your right arm so we know you can do it prior to trial as s proceedings progress along you can't do it at the appellate stage we're in between we're in between there and we have so we know that we have we have two points on the do you agree that have to have the trial courts if you are way on time way just like harvard representation at this point you just can't do it now that we would find that to be  would not grant because he had some question why this motion is brought during the third week of trial and then he went on to say i'm denying the motion right under forever to self representation one has to be competent but the state trial judge applied the wrong standard of cop in this which was the competence to adequately actors your own lawyer and made it clear that the competence necessary to represent oneself is the competence to waive the right to counsel to give that right up and to choose to represent oneself appeal and so a different whole different interests a whole different legal principle applies thank you honor if the supreme court came out next term with a decision as to form the trial requests for stuff representation we require a trial courts to consider a number of factors including the defendant's ability to effectively represent himself that we don't have that decision right now we have an empty slate the trial court the language in early that we were that we're talking about the reasoning or the result so long as neither the reasoning nor the result of the state court decision contradicts them
think to bring that issue before the court should the court decide to review them regardless because the rule for sixty sets i believe the court could in that regard it's important to look at the trial try to follow through eleven issues that are not specifically listed in that policy debate it's an authorized in the second district went through the basis of their policy due in detail exhaust legal remedies in order to use it on the taxes on authorize the promise of opposing counsel's response of grief is that we have to exhaust those legal remedies before we can access equity there's also been some ruling with regard to the third district and the necessary party rule well for the trial court level we've put in the alternatives not only with regard to necessary  jointer but also with regard to permissive join and in that context to access equity we do not necessarily have to deal with the necessary party rule we do need to deal with what are the taxes on the water and that of course brings us answer in the second decisions second district decision the holding in the freeport tax objection provides for a tax objection when there's an unauthorized tax in the millennium decision allows us to test to doing that all of those issues bill are ones of fact that are going to have to be dealt with back at the trial court to deal with the issue of the authorization on the very answer to provide this
of the fact that once he gets up to the car after making the stop finds out that that's not the case that doesn't mean that that does not mean that he didn't have a reasonable basis to make this stop but what if the trial judge this case it was a traffic stop in that case as in this case there was an allegation there being a trailer all hitch that was obstructing the license plate the also alternative officers and it was their credibility that said it here and it's the same thing that happened here and now the court doesn't go on and say explicitly that there is a credibility issue but i'd like to just and that further there was no determination of reasonable basis for the stuff until after the stop occurred this is a a credibility argument and credibility finding the court simply just did not believe that state puts too much reliance on what's in a video on the video does not capture what the human eye captures a video is focused on the entire range of field where as a human eye focuses on what they're looking at directly there's no plates so one cannot tell from the video that there was a headlight out in the they did the judge had an opportunity to listen to the officer where the credibility of the officer answered watch the videotape
officers did see the baby nothing was triggered so once the once the officer saw the baby through the window and i do want to point out that this is eleven o'clock at night the baby was when the baby was supposed to be it was in a floor the that point they know the parents are home babies home in a place where the be supposed to be at that point where they don't consent to go into the home but they still breech and that was their th amendment violation well we talked about the scope that the scope is important that the officers can you know legal reason one intrusion under any type of exception but they can't go beyond that scope and i think that's the case here is that the  didn't do any type of medical check or physical check or anything like that i know it's just me was carrying the baby but the testimony is that they didn't do any of these checks but i think that makes sense because officers knew they knew from the outside of the baby
was not on the verge of drawing prevents it from being people simply because when all the evidence was presented it was determined that there was no we're tell you and i am not going to go into the in this case of this case lol or what control in the jury found favor of the defendant here there's nothing in the brief worth of the post trial motions that meets the
we don't hear you're aware that this court has this is the second time this court has seen this issue yes so what do you think is necessary to prove that it's an active place of worship i let's say you have a house of worship that has regular services on monday and thursday or friday saturday and sunday and let's assume that this drug koreans action happens on a wednesday is  don't think i agree with this but the judge wanted to go to trial in october and the defense counsel says i may not be ready depending on what the cia evidence
or whether this would be something she would want to talk about in another context and she said as an employee it's something i might be lawfully required to disclose as an employee of the tax assessor's office so for two reasons your honor when she's admitted she would be speaking  be motivated as an employee to make that speech and secondly the district court also correctly pointed out this allegation is so big one can't really even do a proper analysis under rick this would be speech concern because it's simply  complaint the defendants are entitled to fair notice of what kind of st amendment challenges be made in this case and the complaint clearly isn't as applied challenge and that's what we address in our motion for summary judgment and with his report found m class of persons who were bringing the complaint into the e u actually involved two unions to complete unions and several poor civil servants that brought that charge against the government's ban and there the poor did look to work to whether what kind of speech was going to be affected over a broad class of citizenry here we don't have that we have miss harris specifically saying this is how this employment agreement affects me she didn't bring a plane on behalf of anybody else any rd party as this court found more versus cold war to make invalid overbroad challenge you have to assert the rights of someone else you have to tell the court how this affects other people not just me but ms harris failed to do that in her complaint and we would argue now before this court's improper to try to make that argument again that as applied challenges what was brought to believe the district court correctly fandor of our city the three areas of speech involved areas that pain comes st and then the court's opinion is on the last page of the opinion but it makes it very plain that the last page of the opinion that that what this court was talking about was we have a lot of unconstitutional as a
off that would be a pretty straightforward case for the dissertation as i understand if there were like eighteen people laid off seventeen of whom were men because there was less business how do you get around that  problem not just one of the elements of showing the cause of action here that you have to show that she was treated differently because she was a woman yes how to get around the problem of the  seventeen men that's true she must do that but if you look at the entire context here which you would have the opportunity to do if you were able to treated differently than men and it's entirely possible that show that because of her sex she was treated differently in this act when the slack off and i'm asking you counsel if you will please tell me how she needs that heard since seventeen men were also like a legitimate reason now the question is when they say there's a layoff is that a legitimate reason for why they laid her off or an explanation of the fact that there was a layoff what is the she why was the adverse employment action ficken against her as opposed to the people it wasn't taken again why was he selected to be one of the person is there anything  is not in the record what is in the record though is that team like her came back and showed that then the late summer of two thousand and one and you had a downturn of the work that was called at the end multiple rounds of layoffs and that's wh it's a power thing they want these women to encroach understand that they're interfering with their economic expectations and they don't like them being there when i read the allegations in this you've got  think that what we have to look at is the greater context within a year and more months you've got these ten comments over a year in four months that's less than one comment every forty five days that that is not the way we measure sexual believe the record will show does show is that in fact most of the time that ms davis was working she was working side by side with a male i believe the record will show that there were more dangerous job on this job site that she was never assigned to and that i understand that one of the assignments that she just like was working with monaco leave there's evidence in the record that every employee on that i worked with monaco some extent you couldn't get away from it was there i run construction site there was what she did was she asked for certain jobs she wanted certain jobs she was the only person in the evidence to show that  can have a successful hostile work environment and i suppose yes but in the context again i have to say that some of the comments i think were made months before any kind of adverse action was made and before anything happened it was over the course of the year and for months they were my different people the workers honest like the donuts for the guy there is just nothing really sexist about that i would i would disagree with how when he says it was direct
prior order of finding him unfit but just at a later point in time found him fit in your last in the amended response to plaintiff's motion to dismiss defendant's appeal paragraph thirteen in saying to this court don't dismiss this because finally the issue is moot in this case one which should be fully briefed by the parties and then i see the proof there was nothing proceeding with this appeal and he's been setting in the massive canny jail for what some one else will hear that will fit ready to stand trial awaiting the disposition of this appeal  to what the men but that was up to the expert to make the determination and he found they were unfit and it was not just based upon his observation i would defend it was based being there the jury that he was i mean fools to fully assist in his own defense and that he was unable to grasp the seriousness of the any other happens to the contrary and a child court is not free to jack expert's opinion of the defendant's unfitness without evidence of fitness and this is a rule that the defendant does not  because of something that happened after all the evidence was in and he decided the case well i think when you consider something that happened later on this shows the original belief that there was
work because of her because of the gun this aggression and because of her family would not support any type of therapy that she would go through so they said something right so that last resort let's put her in the only finding that it may was that probation as recommended by the social history would not be appropriate the court asked the prosecutor about  the local report from the un says the same thing we're not just talking about winnebago county illinois and i think we're talking on a global level here now that commitment of a minor to a facility like the ivy j j is the last resort you feet up by other detainees as well so that's another question but there's also a question of whether or not she's been diagnosed with intermittent explosive disorder there's a reference that in the the social history he's seventy one i think is where  mother had told the people kind of compelling report that she was not being given her medication so there was an inconsistency or a lack of medication that could affect how she was behaving in there as well did the judge consider that part no he did get into the home where is the actual evidence that the souce the people preparing the social history considered intermediate less strict is that where is the evidence that they hinted that that to the judge there is none because they did considered all of the appropriate factors when you look at the commitment or because it see one hundred and fifty three it's the standard that men work it sounds exactly like a commitment order that was in rocky mount when you look at the lower portion of the front page in her best interest to go into a setting where she's not going to get therapy that she needs how can those two factors be reconciled one of the things i'm saying it's the record reflects that it could have been available for her it's definite well he also determined that there would be additional treatment available to her through idea j j for the state of the standard ones yes exactly including emotional situation to recall all of those issues a one time as opposed to sending her to india knows and then the rosecrans and then to different locations to address those issues reasonably expected to be a risk and look or comment on the housing instability it seems of the families constantly living with other families which is fine except for those families also may come until which is what of the community is what the kids last sentence best interest of the community balanced with the correction and punishment with the kid absolutely but we're saying that balance is askew here because there is a less restrictive setting for which the judge had in the initial of that nation it's i don't mean to put down the judge but it's like the judge saw a recommendation from the social history that the kid be put away in the id j j and he wanted verification that that's what we should do name i don't know what it is it's services used in the community have the emotional ok maybe not the appropriate setting there but but i'm for the record to say the record to reflect that it was residential
you're trying to make this becomes a routine event and you see happened before is there anything in the record one way or the other about whether they had done gotten it from the other sources and
all persons having business before this not a full court may now draw near and they will be heard god save the united states and so on a full court it's a bit of a venture put i think we're off to a good start we're only a couple of minutes beyond our scheduled start time and i think room will be just fine so good one will remain pushing as we work when the supreme court said they'd go up with us remains d individual personal guilt by association is not the basis d for criminal liability but you have to have a connection t a criminal meeting of the minds for the conspiracy and as far as the distribution charges and the distribution causing death and serious bodily injury charges go up whether those that actually sufficient evidence and of course we know evidence that would allow the theory to pass without hesitation in the most of their affairs that's a very high standard or even on appeal even on insufficien evidence argument so i i'm happy to take your questions as we go on but i'll just start diving into each of these individual house starting with the to that when the government indicates that virtually all of these witnesses against terrorists are going to be drug addicts themselves and it's opening the government call these people quote d coconspirators if you and as we know by also relationships are enough and simply because a dealers customer or passes some of that product on to somebody else doesn't make for a conspiracy because again you have to have that meeting of the my father but i go to my local grocery store and buy ten packages of blueberries because i love them so much that i come home and give five to my neighbor because i know he  much and he turns around of the size you know what i want to break even on this song with a good to them i have my next neighbor well that doesn't mean that my neighbor and i have a conspiracy conspiracy to distribute blueberries but there was no indication of a wisconsin or illinois license way adam so that is the fact that whatever happened as a martyr happened thirteen to eighteen hours prior you know just the court reporter keep the tape recording of the trial or is it just just no watch my my understanding and i know if the person he was calling to had a worse the defense budget and could not identify harris in court as the person he was speaking to about obtaining heroin and then t on what the government does not have to prove but that's backwards when the government is charging somebody the government should be rick wired to positively a connection it shouldn't be that the government can rely on not mean that harris was in a conspiracy to rob a bank it might mean harris is responsible for some other crimes but not a conspiracy to rob a bank and i see that my time has elapsed and i will bust out that i ask that you
so we have our year to tell you about serious summer salads today and we actually decided to do one for breakfast one for lunch and one for dinner so i'm going to demonstrate these values for breakfast and then going to take over tell us all about herself and tell you how to make a salad for lunch and for dinner so i'm going to get started for breakfast you want to start your day out with some good protein so rise out of my parents and that just really as a nice freshness to salads and desserts if you're making muffins or skilling's adding this us really brightens up like you know how i'm doing it with the cut side up that way you can kind of watch first  and this does make quite a bit of dressing if you want to cut it in half that's mine and i wrote the rest in peace so that you could have some extra on the side but it just depends on how much you want and this will keep you could have it on  and then our vinegar at is so so simple so i always have some aged balsamic i love the stuff you don't really have to add much to it because it already has so much flavor
that his testimony is highly credible it's not just the story that got to be an engine that tells us that seemed to i was stretching the truth is that all physical evidence of the scene indicates that only of the testimony at trial was that what was being shot from behind where he works for others were back yard and tell him to come out because he wants you to fight i think terms were something about with being an ass but anyway the  point is these two brothers go to pick a fight with shane doyle and that begins the story and that is how the judge the jury had to judge story about the captain first off that story was not told right off it was invented later the second the defendant's brother didn't know how to load it could not  they were people that did the issue is did the defendant clifford possess a weapon not the use it if you just possessed and there were several people who saw him in possession of the weapon first there was shane the whale who's you know credibility was certainly impeached by the fact that he was involved in the shooting too and  at him and his brother of aggravated just charge of a firearm that doesn't mean that they found it that they didn't have a firearm or that one did not discharge the firearm it just means they rejected the testimony that got close to the defendant and his brother she saw that the brother hit the gun out of the defendant's waistband and she saw him she's a lonnie waving in the air she identified it as a as a gun knockout pistol but as a gun and she was certain that it was a gun she did not see anybody firing she ran on past the brothers to seek out some safety and so she couldn't say who actually fired that weapon but she did hear gunshots and she was certain they were gunshots because they were about her sister crystal rightly from a different different perspective on that street also saw defendant as being in the third person i'm sorry that i didn't identify the defendant as being in possession of that weapon and as i said the jury was perfectly reasonable in it and setting this as an actual river on the defendant's person but she did see one with it and that she did see loni shoot in the she was also impeached with the back there in her first statement to police she basically said the same thing that she saw really to paraphrase him and he would forgive me but i would say that in this case that the words were always out numbered and always out guns i don't think there was i don't think there was sufficient