MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
cases and that's at ten three but we feel that is a specific determination that was made by this court that goes directly to the question of whether yet notwithstanding sixteen be one in which there is to be a requirement of providing the documents and information that the defendant of those documents and the court agreed without prejudice allowing trial counsel to raise any points that he felt were appropriate as to why some of that evidence would be in fact the insurance company which was central to his entire practice and was in the integrally involved and everything that was involved in this case was never in fact allowed to be shown to the jury as a result of that prior pretrial and but there would have to be a showing outside of the jury if there was going to be any attempt to indicate that dr candidate has  which it requires that there be an absolute intertwined with the underlying offense or this or other acts that the principal whole proceeding it did in fact result in a conviction of dr kennedy davis which we feel under all of these authorities should be reversed this denial of the petition for you're on the other things and in this case we go back to the trial of the trial this case concerned three things going for surgical facilities when there was no surgical facility removed material sort of back out showing the x rays there's no comma likely performed on that stuff but he insisted to the jury that he had done that work that is why dr can you think  davis was convicted because he lied over and over and over to the jury about the work that he did examples of what's including local procedural codes if you look at those two exhibits they don't have anything to do with a hammer toe they don't have anything to do with the explosion of remorse in the room they deal with  this bag of documents was something that the trial counsel was perfectly willing to put in hadn't been in any reasoned responsible evidence for the defendant but be provided to the jury that being the billing practices that he in fact followed in his office to the insurance companies that were in fact paying for the services for prospective patients counsel  custody of these documents and his testimony which i don't believe was challenges in a responsible way was to the effect that he in fact and given this his attorney those documents well in advance of the time of trial so we think that is really a special point here and one that has been ignored by by the government and the terms of the important advocacy of the documents that he was attempting to put in which directly related to the care and treatment he was given to patients and the amounts that he was charging to the insurance companies and the billing practices that were being followed which he feels would show that indeed he was the amount of restitution was determined by the probation office as a proposal in the pre sentence report and there was a specific schedule  question well let me just say this i know that there was there was a unilateral amendment of the restitution by the court but i don't right i don't
discrimination complaint she alleged that she was the victim of her terribly ation because the agency didn't write her travel and wage benefits to which she was entitle a federal bill doesn't she have to show ever adverse  action in her reserve status was the same before and after that correct i guess she she she she was a reserve employee which which meant that she she would only wait when when  that only female employee could give lectures on sexual harassment made clear and the lawyer for the agency is the one who just wrecked it this half the reason she wasn't paid for her travel expenses is there was no regulation governing it whereas her supervisors were under a requirement to come and testify and the specific regulations sixteen fourteen said that they should be paid so how do you get around the burden shifting back to you to establish that that administrative judge it's on the record and according to the very regulation that you cited to think that the government was required to pay for our travel and her and number number two that an agency attorney who is a representative of the agency stated on the record that my client w possibility it's one thing if the supervisors make that decision and we're not going to pay the travel expenses and i could see where you'd be arguing the very people that were upset about her title seven complaint in the first need to show be evidence provide the evidence to the district court but they intend to show the jury at trial that they have the evidence to prove their case the plaintiffs in this case completely abrogated that opposition a summary judgment was fact free so to speak look let me ask you just one question yes judge doesn't hold an administrative hearing in a state other than where the plaintiff here you know anyone in milwaukee so it's unknown why that judge chose the only thing the record is who does make a comment sort of offhand that if he had known the agency wasn't paying her expenses he would consider pulling at another
prosecution or to city ordinances unruly gathering and underage drinking and whether or not the search and seizure motions should prevent mr  and so to be sure there's two different objects in the object in the criminal case and his object that we have here is a criminal case the object was to suppress evidence found there so therefore it's irrelevant what the court was concerned about was the officers going into the backyard and ultimately court found that there was sufficient cause to go into the backyard or investigation the record is actually devoid of any discussion or details either by the court or by the witnesses of how the officers got into the raj what was the rationale for throwing rug doesn't work didn't find it relevant so it was never gotten into so ultimately there isn't an advantage they have issues in this case because in a criminal case the judge was only concerned about what evidence should or should not be suppressed and the only evidence that was found at the home was that backyard there were no underage persons inside the house probably doesn't go into the garage but this critically important did not find it and took great pains to walk away from that finding and only talked about going into the back yard and and even though entry into the backyard only thank you the issue that's before the port in this case which is why was he was the entry into the  or stayed away from a desk this is all what this case is about whether or not going into mr soldier's garage and including going into locked cabinets as explained in  make a finding as to the garage that the civil claim that was left by plaintiffs the remaining civil claim was a th amendment violation for unlawful entry into the need you're not getting your day in court because you're being told you've already had your chance and we're not going to hear it again so seems to me that in that kind of situation you really want to make sure your record is crystal clear on t that that they were denied entry into the home itself they were denied entry into the hall and they did not enter the home but they did enter the garage so when the court says on page it was two  that there's nothing to do with the entry into the home that's correct the officers were not allowed entry into the home they went into the garage an officer mcauliffe said she saw the two minors intoxicated followed him into the drive through an open door in the rear and had a discussion with them in addition officer medina says he came into contact with mccullough in the garage she was already in there apparently talking to the two young ladies so the court is at this point on the nd day of hearings there is testimony to the effect of information is suppressed and the cries that wasn't there in the st day of the year that's what mr author who was having our problems he wouldn't let them in with the paramedics so they brought him brought him outside so i don't think there's any confusion with the drives in the home
viability of needle biopsy he states that the person who was consulted to see it from the all biopsy could be done or was intervention radiologist said she wanted to have another test performed the thirty minutes before the decision was made to admit the diary and during that time in the context of her testimony as to why she did not keep an appointment with her hospital she stated  fired is that she never actually testified that the ultimate source of the decision that a needle biopsy couldn't be performed was interventional radiologist the testimony was  second trial that before he he ever heard from one as to the viability of needle biopsy he had already decided against it the physician's assistant front of the trial judge the point being that an honest effort was made to look at the very source of information that said that that needle biopsy could have been done that's what she would have rel witnesses that were employees of partners health care thank you thank you
so the engineers walk away and the children's wheelchair and the child can either control the trainer with buttons joysticks or even a mouthpiece depending on their unique needs  d that has happened in this project was the engineer scout take measurements and then they go away for three months and fill the project without checking in with the p t s or the families of the children so specifications that they need for the project did you do any research question for people in the special needs situations in high schools in our area
drug trafficking statute which says that he took possession is transmitted into an advantage found that that is very different than what we have here in congress obviously intended under the section break murder sexual abuse irritating aunt who asks the trial of the intimate questions perhaps about her developing body and might be charged under this statute someone who sends a  left maybe whispering he shakes his hand she becomes alarmed after having seen him on the streets trying for a short period of time for i think a total of ten times no physical contact between the two  how when i read those california cases even when they talk about how there has to be some sexual idea at least in the mind of the perpetrator and i think they keep having qualifying language like for the most part and then there's some conflicting language like read the word worry in the ordinary sense of the word and i'm concerned about whether the broad reach of the statute is is such as to take it what it says to even if the prosecutor is charging inconsistently with what the legislators many years ago had in mind yes that's true there are those qualifying term yes because he has the act action for perpetrator were done with actual intent so you can have sexual abuse of a minor with no touching by the perpetrator was not speaking between the two it's not relevant for purposes of our analysis it's relevant to me and all you have to do is annoy the kid it just doesn't look sexual may a lot of telling kids to do their homework very noisy but it's not sexual do you agree with your adversary when he says there's going to be nothing to put in the record so there's no purpose
line defendant has even asked the poor to do in this case again roaring about other crimes evidence or whether it would be proper for the jury did it mr face was on electronic monitoring that day and whether you violated the terms of the iconic monitoring this  place to put on some sort of ferment evidence to ever establish an alibi and at this point he has not done so good that there hasn't been a trial and he's put forth no intent to do so it's alibi if they want to show that he told his girlfriend to go to church for him and you have been in this state based on the language of this word is free to do so where exactly when he could have been shot he could have been going to a prayer he could have done just about anything during that time
these are sixth graders on the juror and they've heard all this evidence that there's a divorce going on and the defense theory was she's making this up to put herself in a better position for whatever reason or he's making it up to
some special meaning when he used the words residence it was mr perkins burger the trial or prove that special meaning he failed to do so
conduct he alleged that he filed a notice of claim with the county shortly after his initial release that claim was denied to the county thereafter allowed his dream to rest five years later and all of those courses of conduct on the part of the county instead of investigating and taking action on that claim basically united loud the warrant to remain dormant for four years allowed him to be rearrested four years later on the self same allegations which he remain based on where there's a criminal proceeding going along the things track now granted the proceeding with him going down that track for four years while the warrant language but criminal charges remain pending until january two thousand when they were ultimately dismissed the reason that we rely on h shouldn't be allowed to benefit from the fact that he was able to evade arrest well first of all that argument it's not actually supported if they'd like to prove that defense through development of perpetual record they're certainly entitled to on summary judgment second of all there is no case either from the ninth circuit or the supreme court that creates exceptions to the humphrey it's a bright line rule third it was certainly within the county's power to trigger the statute of limitations in this case they had the opportunity to either prostitute charges execute the dismiss the charges thereby triggering the statute of limitations they didn't do any of those things until january two thousand which is why he was entitled to the cruel rule under sunder federal law and which is why he was entitled to a tolling rule under california provide that the requirement of a complaint before the court can make the determination still nor complain in this case right there was no complaint that their argument is without a complaint there was no subject and otherwise has the power to do that then yes there is immunity it may be incorrect it may be dead wrong but still immunity attaches the distinction between that situation in the one you address with an alabama judge trying to affect restriction over someone in missouri or whatever is that the judge doesn't have the power to do that ever those aren't circumstances that give rise to that that are within his judicial powers whereas here i don't believe there's any dispute that judge parsons didn't have jurisdiction with respect to this arraignment with respect to making the probable cause determination he made that t error is there if there was one is that there was no complaints from warne but that is precisely the type of drill error that the courts find don't make any difference we've said a case in our brief the city of requirement that there be an affidavit under these circumstances there was no affidavit and the court held that that made no difference that was simply as i say the type of procedural error that doesn't affect and unity i see i have twenty three seconds left
does away with one legal argument that's true
relevant legal task which this report got wrong is whether there has been a material change in the party's relationship as a result of a court order agreement or stipulated order of some harm here either we are fine with either way to be honest but since the government wanted it teed it up and wanted it addressed we're happy to have it addressed also well some have parties are happy that have issues addressed but the question is what's the appropriate thing for the court to know held that prevailing party status and recovery of egypt these is limited to very specific circumstances specifically according to this court a prevailing party under egypt must be one who has gained by judgment or consent  prevailing parties under regional and entitled to feed based solely on the ins the stipulation not to deport abraham carbonel for a period of forty five days the district court concluded that they did not meet the standard as set out  that theory so they did not say that you could not qualify if you merely had a settlement agreement they recognize that we've said that and said that we don't have to address that circumstance because we couldn't have addressed it they couldn't have over situation where the parties have reached something clues and as to the merits of the underlying action the court has entered an order which can then permits the course to go in and enforce that agreement in the papers before this court the requests made by the carbonell simplified if you look at the petition that was filed in the district court what was really being sought was for the district court to overturn until march twenty sixth two thousand and three there was a statement please yes i understand that but i'm my questions of the remedy you think the only remedy would in the sanctions well then there would have been some further litigation in the district court to determine whether or not that deportation order was on lawful unconstitutional there was no there was no showing that the deportation order was unconstitutional and was not executable well the question is though was the district court stay order legally enforceable and your answer seems to be no and it but it would it would only rise to a contempt or a sanction remedy through them and they could not vote or there would be that you cannot sue the united states government and its official capacity to see conjunctive relief facially america's position on the entire ballgame here was the state of course other relief was also asked for in the complaint my client was in custody us and the government wants to deport i simply that's not only that the government does take the position still generally that they are free to deport while
why do you follow those suggestions iran first of all we did not completely follow those suggestions i filed the written word quite as which contained five questions i asked that they be conducted in right in the shambles of what was essentially a response to the cases that you that you describe as setting forth the standard when there are specific facts they don't look to general background societal events they don't they all tie it to the concerns about the particular facts of the case here and ask us to conclude that notwithstanding that those cases do that we should read them to apply to the issue reached by me opposing counsel here and i'd like to know that there is simply no author already were hers proposition that a district were here was required to conduct individualized questioning of the prospective jurors although there are certainly circumstances in which a federal worker is required to make inquiry regarding potential racial bias it is the government's position that this was not such a case but even if it were her states no case and the government is aware of that would suggest that the should be no different here and moreover lest there be any concern that perhaps an individual germy not wish to raise their hand in response to questions regarding race specifically the district court also has more general questions asking the jurors come forward if they had any doubts for any reason that they might record the evidence of the other transaction did not in any way shape or form overwhelm the conduct of trial your review of the record reveals that over the course of the five day trial involving fifteen different ways that  evidence of the firearms other firearms of the sit by the government was limited largely to the testimony that direct testimony of one particular witness and the introduction of the form forty four seventy three robbery his testimony and moreover when that evidence was discussed the focus was there on the additional firearms the difficulty that rather on tuesday transactions and i was the court has any further questions regarding that particular issue i would simply highlight that this court has routinely h that someone might be more willing to admit to racial individual as opposed to it but it was there any specific studies presented to the district court that you know
it but i thought you just were saying that i guess that it's not that they were enforcing the housing act it's the way they were enforcing the housing act and i assume if that's true you do need to wait to know whether housing act apply because the argument would be it doesn't matter whether it applies even if it applies they can't enforce it in this abusive m so i have the statute of limitations any time earlier you could have brought the exactions you knew what was going on and you didn't you waited and then it judge  all that might bear on how unconstitutional was and you said no because then nature of the enforcement was such that it was unconstitutional independent of whether a lower court thought it was legal or whether there was a plausible argument which is if there is a land court decision saying this zoning act does in fact i how can you accuse these people of doing something irrational or arbitrary ok can i get you tallow laurean tale of was stirring up politics but it's one that frankly i don't understand could you start from scratch and say why  ok thank you be on review if who brought again brought the suit into did december two thousand and fourteen the actions of the housing court occurred in december at the end of two thousand and nine at the beginning of two thousand and ten  got to parallel objections they don't like how you're from enforcing it and they question your authority to enforce a law so they want to challenge your theory to enforce it all and they're going to go up the chain if they win on that then they're going to have gotten i guess whatever recompense they can get and they can shut down any future force and cetera at the same time they don't like the particular means that you're in forcing are they really supposed to bring two suit could bring in one suit and i don't i don't why i think maybe later down the road they possibly could but i don't necessarily believe that in this case the plaintiffs vigorously file the application a lodging house out know there's something called an england reservation where you present in this case in a case it goes to the s j c something that says we also have constitutional claims which we are reserving until the decision of this court but we want to make it clear we prefer to be in federal court that neither of the parties is discuss that option at all so i think you could have presented to the s j c seven these issues i'm not quite certain because it wasn't real and they were not  other claims i believe even in federal court but i don't know that of substance if you process claim is one that would be successful especially not against the back ground of two state suppose the plaintiffs doesn't have quite enough evidence to make that assumption the process fine if they are in the position of someone with violating the act but if you turn shocking be sure that it's not great you kind of rebel that the notion of saying that's an appropriate way to treat your citizens but you wouldn't say it's shocks the conscience in a constitutional sense and now if i add to it oh and by the way it was a force in action taken pursuant to