MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
here since you got what you and this is now with seems to me being a matter between the lower court in mr broken words you have an interest and i'm talking legally because the issue here is the appropriateness of that order in this really he is really the that judge is basically the a know i'm not have done anything wrong we're talking about your legal staff and i still have a problem of identifying your interests as properly being court in one word or simultaneously issue to rule help them in contempt with no opportunity provided no i may say he didn't appear on may that was a continued faith in the court issue not it's not one hundred percent that way it's jurisdictional with respect to service of silence and with a lot of word where you're initiating a new proceeding ah it's not because of this is not clearly for example that actual knowledge would have suffered for service with respect to this proceeding even though it would not be a substitute for service
goddamned i can never think about god damn i still can't place my ass off the ground
search warrant the defense notified the court in the government i'm going to be calling back the detector chick corea it and i guess that puts some of the icing on the cake for the it the instruction and it was actually quite specific it was the judge to the jury i'm striking those exhibits i'm instructing you to disregard them to put them out of your mind your body may not be based even in part on those exhibits or in testimony that surround it does exhibits i'm sorry to defense counsel suggest language to the court they did best counsel didn't suggest that exact language and defense counsel did ask for a mistrial  yes alternatively he asked for an instruction and defense counsel very much wanted the included piece which was that the testimony that comey does exhibits should also be struck so yes defense counsel was very much part of district courts finding witness evidence was improperly when it's it instructed the jury and that's actually exactly what this court has said it should do a mistrial is only a last resort appropriate only when the credit is actually where the jury's exposure to the evidence is not curable and that is just not what we have in this case in fact jury of him arranging drug deals with mr welch on death and following up on drug deals they had scuse me surveillance of him getting out of the car and of course there were that seventy eight bags of heroin that were found on him when he was arrested this was not a close case one number on one phone would not have made any difference in fact that something other women fall under this do that but if it had it would have seen that that affidavit also included a graph of those phone calls between them describe that agent to korea recognized r is his voice and also describe a lot of that surveillance and sorrows use the name but the question why isn't how did the witness recognize the name and there is when he arrested him he talked to mr arias and he heard his voice and he could recognize that that voice was the same one that was on the intercepts and also that mr milch on the head referred to him and and so he knew who he was at that point
doesn't specify who got them you know specify you know when he was turned down when you're complaining about promotions you have to say i applied for the job of you know x you know a promotion that the or at least that's why the district judge thought that this theory was not properly presented and your case certainly you could see the terminations argument that you can't do without specifying what you applied for he was still in and if you have possession all of the other employee in the very extremely subjective process no one made an application the chief just simply at best person and the not show that even admitting that's just a record contained any evidence of the disciplinary records or qualification since the white officers who were promoted into not of the ones that were department policy to pack down and search an officer prior to a germination hearing i mean we know from recent news in aurora ads exterminations you know can be frau pace just seemed to pick up i mean there are some small things and then then all of a sudden he's getting written up for five things all at once i think if you look at also the other officers that were terminated the same thing was happening this is the chief who kind of evidence of any application for a promotion and who else applied who else was given a promotion with their qualifications work again that's what's required in a profession case rather than a conversation i gather that the theory that mr potter's i wonder is to what extent is the record showed mr boyd stated to somebody in a position with a lot of authority or in some other way communicated kids interest and promotion right there or there is no evidence in the record that he ever did that and that again is at a minimum what the court does require thank you i think mainly what that upon is arguing is that you know he was just mum wasn't fair to him and that you know the chief didn't look at his in his look at him the way he should have been again that's not the standard you know his assessment of his performance is not the standard if you have to look at it from the employer's perspective and i think also you have evidence from the
off which ultimately caused hope stuff in this case nigel became scared when the gun went off and he actually believes that he shot his friend and he ran away he did not take anything from hope now no one is making an argument that this offense is not knowingly and voluntarily pled guilty to a new ended count one of st degree murder in exchange for the state agreeing to several things including to recommend a cap at forty years the defendant to thirty three years which is seven years less than where he bargained for and a significant to last him which he may have received had this case gone to trial so essentially the defendant an adult  consideration of the circumstances of the events the location of the advance and the fact that other people were present and possibly in danger the fact that this was contemplated planned schedule arranged to some extent i am not convinced and i don't accept that there was a significant compulsion involved in this case the court considered all the relevant factors that he needed to the court goes on to say it gives more and predecessor the idea that you had time to consider withdraw or consider and go forward i can't accept reasonably the argument that it would be a complete surprise to anyone that in contemplating an armed robbery that someone may be injured or her would be a surprise that's just not a reasonable option in my mind the defendant had several opportunities to choose whether or not he was going to participate in this on drunkery he did so and i don't know in what world he thought this would go well and clearly it didn't and here we are so i ask your honor to see the trial where correctly considered the defendant's age even before that was a specific requirement on the new statute and supreme court case that and after considering all of the relevant factors and balancing and determining where that have been it would be the courts that sense that if it took thirty three years which again is seven years less than what he agreed to for the state capital and court has ever dealt that a thirty three year sentence of the fact a life sentence for a juvenile or for an adult and the defendant was an adult when he committed this offense and until the legislature makes the determination that they need to retroactive
today i st want to you know that situation we have here is we've got a case where the record shows that multiple witnesses would have said that t that those firearms were properly admitted under the independent source exception to the exclusionary rule and the state's argument goes that essentially the state has agreed that once offices illegally entered the tarrant county the warrant did not really provide much detail at all about the prior power so a judge looking at that would see that there's a parent power and that she was told the sensually what police were doing but it doesn't say much else about her demeanor that prior encounter so we've got all we've got is someone who's there was the door and fails to mention that there's many black men present there who does not meet the description of the perpetrators and that is not sufficient to warrant a person or  the fact that there were other people there is something that was not known the state has agreed to that the judge agreed to that we have the judge's findings here the judge clearly agreed that the entry was illegal and that this
proceedings on appeal the parties by merely disagreeing about the contents of mr copas petition now i mean i'm surprised this court to hear that like many pro se petitioners mr coburn is not a lawyer so consistent with supreme court precedent and do whatever  but that was a threat so they would see first in the terms the state failed to see i was any just of a constitutional claim as your own and noted in regards to the consecutive sentences defendant was being sentenced in a separate case that the statement in this post conviction petition is not the gist of a constitutional claim further when he said the state would win the most reasonable explanation of that statement because if you go to maybe he's talking about this one case the case the context of the case that they're talking about just one case if they didn't take the one year offer meaning one year in this case that the state would seek consecutive terms that's a that's a very big as far as what does that mean in tech consecutive terms on the way because you're talking about a one year offer in potentially one case right  other this no in this case where there are two charges it says if you do not take the one year offer presumably that's one year on one case then it seems like they're saying they'll go straight to charges testify that a different officer initiated the national stop or something or in those lines i don't see how any of that relates to filing the appeal for the motion suppressed so the state for contest obviously there's no
service that it needs that then obligates the government to any request for any bid by macleod my understanding of the then the government will ask for a quote request from and so in that sense the obligations from the government in this agreement dollars but at a minimum i would you agree that there's nothing in this p p l that obligates the government to narrow the competition pool for contracting dismissing the three counts that he did and then he needed the basis for roughly eighty percent of the damages that were originally claim absolutely is here and the government view is that that language is consistent with the fact that the tax order levels for obligations and specifically as just said i believe you mentioned there's no obligation here on behalf of the government to use the address this with the court in our bruce we said we offered to brief the matter as a twelve b six if the government moved on that basis or the court requested  the court didn't request and the government never moved the we were left with the choice of making or responding to an argument that no one had made and that was not before the court for addressing the narrow jurisdiction
working as a union labor in july of two thousand and three and first sought medical treatment for her shoulders in july of two thousand and three if you look at dr ludwig medical records it's clear that the  complaint was very minimally symptomatic that throughout the treatment you look at the stack indication in october thirteenth of two thousand and three he indicates the complaints were  unchanged not significantly symptomatic he seizure again about a month later in november of two thousand and three better than six weeks ago slowly resolving her problem and i think it's significant to know that almost two years go by before she seeks any further treatment with dr ludwig when he sees her october of two thousand and five so we've got a two year gap in medical treatment and yet the concentration is on the r no diagnosis made of
want to see happen with the future ok so
was charged with the state crime in october two thousand the ins came and questioned him at the fresno county jail in a month and indictment was filed in the federal court trial act would mean to that he was in fact in state custody at that time and no time did the government s he was told that he was facing criminal prosecution and he specifically asked the ins officer am i going to be prosecuted and the ins officer said i don't think so you're doing nine years now i already i don't recall i don't recall i would not represent to the court that that was what happened but what we got what we think what happened in this case was we were given a series of off first initially we year after the indictment is reasonable particularly given the phony authority for that no i have  i think the court has asked questions about why this would be before it just actually i don't think there is anything that the court could consider to answer the question about whether it was a conditional guilty plea now what was not the record of the change of to do what they were supposed to have done and that individual's rights had been violated and therefore he decided dismissed he also dismissed with prejudice which we believe was inappropriate because he did not do an analysis of the factors that he was supposed to case well it's unclear whether they care because they certainly didn't seem to do anything in this case they do have the evidence the record shows that they do have regulations that require them to comply with the id they just didn't follow them in to the district court indicating the defendant's desire for a speedy trial that case where after open the doctrine of substantial compliance following facts versus michigan how could this even assuming that you're on legal grounds how this possible be substantial compliance through the the nation of the livery of the u s marshals formed seventeen to the marshals and the prison officials and the accurate and misinformed content no means of communication with the court and the prosecutor in english prison officials took no additional steps to enable him to follow the directions he was given by the form i should add that the form instructs him to make periodic inquiry of the to a greater extent than completion of the form i think is an unrealistic consideration of the circumstances in which he would other inmates find themselves
irrational classification because it's excluded similarly situated not on permanent resident alien moral character on account of their acts of elian smuggling the important point is that this is an application for relief and as for as pointed out congress is drawing certain lines of respect to that application for relief in this instance they way for that exception one because they are not lawful permanent residents and also they are actually heard after may nine hundred eighty eight in addition they are not seeking admission or adjustment status because they are immediate relatives the lines were seeking admission or just went through many relatives so there had to be some relationship that the only smugglers had was someone in the united states that had that they had some relationship with somebody who had status in the united states these positions in the us and case don't have status through the immediate relative provisions you are outside of this discretion these discretionary waivers and the point being if you're an alien smuggler and you have some relationship with a lawful permanent resident or an immediate relative or a u s citizen the united states varies that's up to the attorney general and that's within its discretion but the point was that the ins has rock star status these individuals they are subject to removal they are not eligible for cancellation of removal if they if they are
was capable of representing himself the court refused to let her see pro se and it appointed public defender team to represent him the court later issued a written order written order stating that it had doubts about mr hall's ability to represent himself court was not properly exercising its discretion with a lot of the wrong legal standard the standard is not whether a defendant has the capabilities comparable to an attorney but only whether he's knowing we intelligently then he began to discuss the speedy trial rights with the court and tell the court that one hundred twenty days had passed which would have been straight he is knowledgeable on some aspects of the long court interrupted mr holm mid sentence and ignoring his requests to proceed pro se the court told only counsel will address this later mr ting and the court ended the hearing again at the may twenty ninth hearing mr hall appeared in court with another public defender and refused to speak to him saying this to representation by counsel for failing to object however we don't require that trial attorneys repeatedly raise an issue when the court has already made its ruling and i don't think i can be all clear we don't wish to require that  a defendant either it was clear no matter how many times mr hall asked the court was not going to let me represent himself and that was because the court was ruling on the wrong basis but he didn't think mr hall understood the requirement second request came a month later and then tried all follow after that i don't have to date in front of me when trial started but the the first requests on they really would be no that court gives us two key factors in this case one is that the trial court in this case never conclusively denied defendant's request to proceed pro se in both requests ended with the trial court saying that they will address the well that if if he did issue a trial counsel was going to represent him defending refused to leave the jail the on the next thing the next quote on the subject of counsel representation assisting saying that he made a mistake he apologized to the court but he was misguided by other inmates and that he was happy that the he should've just let the lawyers do their job because they are quote very good at it he didn't protest his request and mr hall instead of giving up he tried again a month later you're on and you asked me when the first request was made it was april twenty eighth the second request was made may twenty six court here was using the wrong standard it said we're not an attorney you don't have the skills of an attorney so you can't do it and that's not the standard and the law has been clear on that for more than forty years next i have to say has argued that this doesn't rise to error this is structural because generally we understand that when a defendant wants to represent himself more likely than not he may end up worse than he would have proceeded with counsel and because of that
not intend to publish the photo race to the jury at the time of their mission but there was not a representation that those would never be
where the evidence is our contention that it is because a reasonably stable market didn't exist where he could have found work she acquired a number of useful transferable skills as the corner of a restaurant and a painting company and as a supervisor in a factory and she stable market for all those jobs now or the  mail clerk messenger things like dude how much justifier did to her opinion regarding the claimants ability to perform those specific jobs was based upon instructions specifically given to her by the employer's insurance claims manager discussing on cross examination whether or not there was only her market based on his restrictions but as i said a few pages later in the deposition transcript she did list those other jobs that she said actually these do these are
mr such the judge leyland really was led into believing that he was more than a minor player which he just wasn't the government made three general allegations we disproved each and every one of those  many in front of many juries i've held up my hand and said to them here's a photograph of my client not selling drugs and the point is i can't prove a negative that proves nothing i could show a million photos of my client not selling drugs the government needs to prove what he did and each and every one of the government's allegations i submit we didn't prove the financing allegation it was clearly proven in the documentation in the government's discovery that  district judge did make him look in excerpts of record i think he'd won sixty seven as the for the sentencing transcript he did make some comments with regard to the fact that he had these consolidated cases pending before him and therefore entitled to a minor role in the fans don't we have to find that that's clear error in order to grant you the relief that you were seeking if that's one way to look at it and thankfully it is clear air i find that that's more of a well i don't think you're responding to my question but my question is you're asking us to find clear error on the one hand but you're arguing that he didn't make adequate factual findings and so i don't think you can have it both ways if you want to remain and i think we have to remain that on an open record and then you're going to have to urge him i trust with the government's concurrence to make specific factual findings as to why he does or does not qualify him for the minor role adjustment then you can bring an appeal back if you're not satisfied with the result and make the argument that you're now making to us but i just don't see how we can in essence re mandate but tell him on this record you have he were king that wouldn't happen but i'm not quite sure what to do with that other than you know district judge you get frustrated all the time at what lawyers do right i would like to underlying factual disputes that led to that conclusion and there were plenty of these as counsel said we have a very different view we believe that for him this was a financer that he was a leader that he was involved early on that he was very much part of this conspiracy all the way this court simply can't tackle those questions in the first instance they can't review findings that the district court just didn't make so i think it has to go well are i remember just be without prejudice to making any records and i would just invite this court to be manned with questions form with instructions and the examples that i gave in my reply create them the answers to those very compelling questions because i think they're hard questions and frankly i think the judge whalen just didn't want to go there i think